AD-A261 460

DTICS ~LECTE

S FES 1.7 1993j i

C

EXPERIMENT REPORT

UNITED STATES ARMY SPACE EXPERIMENT 601

TERRA SCOUT

Space Requirements Branch

Space Division, Directorate of Combat Developments

United States Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca

Fort Huachuca, Arizona

29 July 1992

93-01337S•' ; ... : ••,- "- l!inlilI!imnn RilIIlIl••

TABLE OF CONTENTS

P reface ............................................................................................................................ iv

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. I-11. Purpose of Experiment ..................................................................................... I-12. R atio n ale ................................................................................................................... I-13. O bjective ................................................................................................................... 1-24. Procedure ................................................................................................................. 1-35. Scope of Experiment ..................................................................................... .1-36. Background .............................................................................................................. 1-37. Experiment Equipment Requirements and Acquisition ................................... 1-68. Experiment Limitations .......................................................................................... 1-9

1I CONDUCT OF EXPERIM ENT ........................................................................ II-11. G en eral ...................................................................................................................... 11-12. Experiment Phases ............................................................................................... II-13. Concept of Employment and Operation .............................................................. 11-44. Experiment Control ................................................................................................ 11-65. Data Collection and Reduction ............................................................................ 11-7

III EXPERIM ENT RESULTS .................................................................................... 111-11. Experiment Issues .............................................................................................. III-12. Summary of Experiment Data ............................................................................... 111-43. Conclusion ................................................................................................................ 111-9

IV FUTURE EXPERIM ENTATION ........................................................................ IV-1

APPENDIX A NASA Mission STS-44 Flight Crew Report ........................... A-1

APPENDIX B Optical Equipment and Shuttle Overhead Window Tests ...... B-1I. SpaDVOS Description Summary ..................................................................... B-12. (Summary of Space Shuttle Overhead Windows, Optical Tests, FinalReport, Aerospace Report No. TR-0091(6508-21)-1, dated June 1991) ................. B-3

APPENDIX C Optical Resolution Panels .......................................................... C-1I. Ground Resolution Sites ................................................................................... C-I2. Ground Measurements .......................................................................................... C-33. Expected Camera Resolution Limits ................................................................ C-54. Expected Observer Resolution Limits.............................................................. C-5

APPENDIX D NASA Brightness Value Study ................................................ D-1

TABLE OF CONTENTS(continued)

APPENDIX E Human Factors Data ..................................................................... E-11. Earth Observation Survey of U. S. Astronauts ........................... E-12. Evaluation of Payload Specialist Candidates for Terra Scout usingPsychological Indicators ............................................................................................. E-33. STS-44 Crew Debriefing on Payload Operations ............................................... E-7

APPENDIX F Payload Specialist Selection and Training ............................. F-11. Paylcad Specialist Selection ............................................................................... F-12. Training of Experiment Personnel ........................................................................ F-2

APPENDIX G Project History ............................................................................. G-11. G eneral ...................................................................................................................... G -12. Project H istory ........................................................................................................ G -13. Terra Scout Sequence Key of Events .................................................................... G-24. Space Test Program/Military Man in Space (STP/MMIS) ........................... G-5

APPENDIX H Miscellaneous Documentation ................................................ H-11. Battlefield Development Plan ............................................................................ H-I2. Target Folder Exam ple ........................................................................................... H -23. Mission Ground Track ........................................................................................ H-4

Appendix I Abbreviations and Acronyms ....................................................... I-1

LIST OF FIGURESI-1 SpaDVOS Configuration Diagram ..................................................................... 1-71-2 O ptical Resolution Panel ...................................................................................... 1-9II-1 P hase H istory ........................................................................................................ 11-2

Illo..

EXPERIMENT REPORT

PR FACE

1. This Experiment Report is intended to accomplish the following:

a. Evaluate results of the TERRA SCOUT experiment as they relate toexperiment objectives defined by the United States Army Intelligence Center and FortHuachuca, (USAIC&FH) Fort Huachuca, AZ.

b. Determine the suitability of the primary and back-up optical equipment to(mission) objectives.

c. Provide a project history detailing how the experiment evolved, the MilitaryMan in Space (MMIS) concept review process, and other ancillary data relevant to thehistory of the experiment.

d. Through review and analysis of mission data collected, and participation ofthe payload crew, describe results of the experiment.

2. The Terra Scout experiment was born out of a suggestion by the first Armyastronaut, Brigadier General Bob Stuart. During a visit to Fort Huachuca in 1985, B6Stuart relayed his observation experiences to the personnel from Space Division,USAIC&FH, with the suggestion that what he had observed on orbit was worthy offurther investigation. The decision was made early in the development of theexperiment to use an experienced imagery analyst as it was this perspective thatwasdesired. Since this was a skill that was not resident in the astronaut corps, it was theIntelligence Center's responsibility to select an analyst who could be trained as aPayload Specialist (PS) for a mission aboard a future space shuttle flight.

Despite the fact that the Air Force concurred that the experiment met thecurrently agreed to guidelines between the Air Force and NASA (as the guidelinespertain to flying a PS), neither seemed anxious to honor this agreement. Eventually,pressure at the service Secretary level, prompted from the Principal Investigator (P1)level, broke the "log jam" thereby delaying the final experiment approval cycle by only18-24 months. We believe and hope that this unfortunate set of circumstances shouldnot arise again for future experimenters who have a valid requirement to employ a PS.

Accesion ForNTIS CRA&ISt-A per telecon Mr. Huth, Army DrIC TAB 0

Intelligence Ctr. Ft. Huachuca/ U~8,louced LiATZS-CDA-S, Ft. Huachuca, AZ 85653. -it 1,fIcat ov

2-17-93 JKBy

M70c QUALrTY tn,1SpE•- 3 -.. ..Ava,tdDlt1't~ f{-d{ls

iv -A\,d(-

During the almost seven years from the initial concept to launch, the projectevolved through the tenure of three Principal Investigators: each who endured thepolitical roller coaster along with other key players. Our opinion after experiencingmany Military-Man-in-Space Review and Prioritization Boards is that we, the Army,need to have more senior leaders with education and/or experience in the area of spaceoperations and related activities. Although we are grateful for the consideration andsupport given to us by many of the Board members, there is a need to have personnelwith the technical and operational knowledge in space operations and experimentation.We gained an immeasurable amount of experience by forging the path with Terra Scout.However, this experience needs to be used and built upon if we are to move ahead (andnot repeat errors which may have been made).

The five key Terra Scout team memibers during the final three years of the projectwere CPT John Huth, CW3 John Hawker, CW3 Tom Hennen, MSG Mike Belt, and Mr.Jerry Ramage who has been key to moving the experiment toward success from thebeginning. The two previous PI's who passed the experiment to us were MAJ (Ret)Dave Bales and CPT Ed Apgar. There are many other people within the Army, AirForce, NASA, DIA, and the Australian government who helped make this experiment asuccess . Finally, we are grateful to COL Fred Gregory for accepting our PS as acrewmember,and the STS-44 crew for making this experiment a success.

v

I. INTRODUCTION.

1. Purpose of Experiment.

The original purpose of the Terra Scout experiment was to collect data which couldbe used to determine the ability of a specialist, in this case an Imagery Analyst (IA), on-board an orbiting platform, to collect valuable information in real time. During severtyears of development, the experiment evolved and expanded in scope to include avariety of research and developmental issues described later in this report.

2. Rationale.

a. Military Man in Space/Space Test Program.

(1) The Military Man in Space (MMIS) program is a component of the Departmentof Defense (DoD) Space Test Program (STh) and is intended to provide opportunities todetermine military applications in space. Relevance of experiments to DoDrequirements is stressed. After approval and prioritization by a Joint Board, theseprograms provide no cost launch services for military experimenters.

(2) To conduct Terra Scout, an astronaut who was a trained expert in ground siteanalysis (such as an Imagery Analyst (IA)), was required. This expertise was notresident within the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) astronautcorps. In accordance with DoD MMIS program requirements, an Army IA was selectedto receive training and subsequent NASA designation as astronaut/Payload Specialist(PS) for Terra Scout.

b. Results of Terra Scout will provide information to assist analysis of thefollowing:

(1) Feasibility of observations made from low Earth orbit and reported to groundcommanders in real time.

(2) Flexibility of an expert in-the-loop to conduct varied on-orbit activities..

Terra Scout will help determine if the expert analyst has the ability to adjust frompre-planned target observation sites to other locations and provide reports in real timebased on his knowledge of Essential Elements of Information (EEI) and key activityindicators.

(3) Utility of a permanent (manned) presence in space to satisfy DoD research anddevelopment (R&D) requirements or to support the combined arms commander.

(4) Capabilities required to cue or augment other national capabilities.

(5) Insight to observables from space which impact Operations Security (OPSEC).

I-1

3. Objective.

To determine the potential of having a trained IA Payload Specialist (PS), toconduct real time analysis from a low Earth orbiting platform.

a. Issues.

(1) Real Time Analysis. Can a trained Imagery Analyst perform real-time groundsite analysis while on board a low Earth orbiting platform?

(2) Spaceborne Direct View Optical System (SpaDVOS). Is the Spaceborne DirectView Optical System suitable as primary optical and video/audio recording equipmentfor this experiment?

(3) Operations Security (OPSEC). Do Earth observations from a manned orbitingplatform impact Operations Security?

(4) ColoristicsI' 1. Are there sights observable from Earth orbit by the human eyethat can not be reproduced through photographic and related technology?

(5) Army Requirements. Is there potential for satisfying Army requirementsthrough real time analysis from space? Is the Space Shuttle a viable platform forconducting, research, development, and experimentation in related Earth observationconcepts?

b. Data collected as a result of Terra Scout could help determine if the analvt;-31skills of a specialist who is a professional expert in his field, provides a significant ormeasurable advantage over those of a professional astronaut who is not aexpert/specialist in that field. Evaluating this data serves to benefit future spacemissions.

c. Evaluating past training and experience of either Imagery Analysts' orAstronauts' is not an objective of this experiment.

4. Procedure.

Terra Scout observation sites were recorded on video tape simultaneously with PSobservations. Audio capability was included on the tape to record the PS verbaldissemination of results and characterization of the SpaDVOS. The primary purpose ofvideo recordings was to verify acquisition of the observation site.

'- The term given to investigation of human color vision during space flight, the development ofinstrurr -nts for measuring it, the development of improvement ot visual and automatic remote-sensingspectrometers, the study of the color attributes of natural objects and phenomena and the study ofradiation spectrums and errors in perception of spectral characteristics.

1-2

After landing, the PS written and verbal reports were compared with ground truthprovided primarily by on-site personnel or by other means.

After landing, other expert IAs were to perform detailed analysis of the recordedvideo and determine if there was a difference in PS reports and information available.Detailed analysis was not accomplished due to the poor quality of the video recording,An explanation is provided later in this report

5. Scope of Experiment.

An Imagery Analyst, trained and qualified as a space shuttle crew member,attempted to visually acquire, track and record observations and analysis of fifty-five(55) planned, ad hoc, and bonus target ground site locations from an orbiting spaceshuttle. The SpaDVOS was the primary observation equipmei.t and the shuttle videotape recorder (VTR) was the primary recording equipment. In addition to videorecording, the IA made a voice recording during each ground site analysis event. Healso entered results of his analysis in separate target folders for each site. Currentweather and other ground truth observations were recorded by personnel at the groundsites. Most ground sites were photographed by other means at approximately the sametime as the orbiting analyst passed overhead. All data collected was returned to theUSAIC&FH after the experiment concluded. The data was analyzed by subject matterexperts (SME) with results described in Section III of this report.

The experiment was planned for a 160-200nm orbit, providing a total viewing timeof approximately 70 seconds per site. Only 45 seconds of the total time was expected tobe usable due to target site locations, target site incidence angle, and the time requiredto acquire, track, zoom, and focus on the site.

6. Background.

a. Justification and Military Relevance.

(1) The tactical commander on the modern battlefield is pressured by limited timeand space, and sophisticated weapons systems. These constraints require him to "see"deeper in all directions and receive information and intelligence in a more timelymanner than ever previously required. One important source of this information isImagery. Intelligence (IMINT).

For several years, the Intelligence Electronic Warfare Mission Area Analysisprocess repeatedly identified inadequate IMINT collection capabilities at echelons fromDivision through Echelons Above Corps (EAC) and Joint Command. The new BranchPlanning Analysis (BPA) process continues to identify these same deficiencies (in thearea of imagery intelligence). The complete prioritized list of deficiencies is publishedin the U. S. Army Training and Doctrine (TRADOC) Battlefield Development Plan(BDP).

1-3

It was believed that experimentation using an Imagery Analyst (IA), performingreal time observation and reporting from an orbiting platform, could provide datawhich would contribute to correcting these deficiencies and provide suppoiat to AirLandOperations doctrine. Thus, Terra Scout was conceived to address Army deficiencies.

(2) Space platforms are not restricted by national boundaries, and are usefulthroughout the spectrum of conflict from contingency operations to support of the deepbattle, and especially for support to emerging AirLand Operations. The imagery targetschosen for Terra Scout included a cross-section throughout the spectrum. of conflict Itis important to emphasize that the objective is not just to see these targets, as has beenmarginally done in previous experiments, but to use the techniques and order of battleexperience of the IA to interpret their importance and note any current significantactivity.

b. Imagery Analysis (IMINT) Description.

Ground site analysis (imagery analysis) is in large part a process of elimination.The primary interest of the military analyst is in military activity and includes the entiremilitary environment. The analyst can evaluate natural features such as terrain,vegetation, bodies of water and ground mobility, and determine types of militaryactivity that could be conducted within the observed environment. He then separatesnatural features from the man-made using a variety of analytical tools and observationskills. These include size, shape, shadow, shade, and relation to surrounding objects orareas. This is why the National Imagery Interpretation Rating Scale (NIIRS) rating of aparticular image, although important, is somewhat insignificant to an imagery analyst.The higher the NIIRS, the more one can see. However, even when an image has a lowNIIRS rating, an experienced imagery analyst can derive information from that imagethat would require a higher NIIRS rating (better resolution) for the untrained orinexperienced person to see the same thing. Usually, background information isavailable to provide the analyst a basic state of "normalcy" for the area or object. Thefollowing examples are provided to describe how the trained expert accomplishesanalysis, and to give rationale for using an expert analyst.

(1) An analyst is tasked to analyze an airfield. The dnalyst will mentally sortthrough the man-made/natural features and initially identify the airfield as military,civilian, or joint use. This is accomplished by looking at the primary runway(s), theirorientation, composition, and whether ammunition storage, or otherunderground/ground covered facilities exist. Next, he will focus attention on thehangars (size and type), taxiways and parking areas (size, type, revetments, separation,parking). Size and location of hangars are indicators as to size and number of aircraftthe airfield can accommodate. Parking facilities provide strong indicators of the typeaircraft normally accommodated i.e., small revetted aprons indicate fighter aircraft.

1-4

These observations are normally completed very quickly and help the analystestablish the type activity likely to be seen. The IA then identifies specifics of facilitiesor objects observed, with special attention to support capabilities such as fuel storagecapacity, rail service, supporting road networks and electrical service. Through trainingand experience the analyst knows traditional and evolving methods for construction,concealment, disbursement, and protection of these facilities. The IA makes adetermination of defenses through direct observation and by analysis of revetments orother patterns not associated with airfield activity. The IA also knows specific patternsof deployment used by different types of air defense systems.

(2) Another example, might likely be the observation of an item of equipmentorganic to an Air Defense Battalion subordinate to an Army or Front which can be usedto protect a high value target such as an airfield, supply depot, etc. Whereas a similaritem of equipment may be organic to a lower level organization and thereforeprotecting a less significant target. The equipment may represent threats to our assets,but perhaps even more important questions are, why are they there and what are theyprotecting? Where one item of equipment may be protecting a nuclear storage area, ahigh level command post, or some other semi-fixed high value target; the other item ofequipment may be providing protection for a river crossing operation. An IA knowsthis, and upon locating items of equipment or patterns on the ground, will naturallysearch for the significant activity or target likely to be associated with that observation.

c. Joint Service Interpretation Standards.

(1) Each of seventeen (17) mission/target categories are described in RADC-TR-90-370, Imagery Interpretation Requirements for Reconnaissance Systems,, along with standingEEI and a representative image for each category. The categories are as follows:

01 Airfield02 Missile System03 Electronic Installations04 Barracks/Camps/Headquarters05 Storage and Repair Facilities06- Military Activity07 River Crossings/Ferries08 Shipping09 Route Reconnaissance10 Terrain Reconnaissance11 Coastal Strip12 Bridges13 Water Control Facilities14 Ports/Harbors15 Rail Facilities16 Industrial Installations17 Electrical PoweL installations

I-5

(2) Each category is further broken down into specific EEI. such as theexample provided below:

Mission/Target Requirement - Cat 01 - AirfieldTARGET EEI - Airfield

1. TypeMilitarv/Civil /joint

2. Statusa. Serviceable/Unserviceableb. Operationalc. Status of Construction/Being Modified/Tvpe of Mod.d. Hardened

3. Activitya. Aircraft - Number, Type, Locationb. Other Activity, If Significant- Include Troop Concentration- Supply Stocks

4. Defenses - Number, Type, Locationa. Anti-Aircraftb. Ground

5. Combat Operation Facilities - Number, Type, Locationa. Operations Centers/Bunkerb. ATC - Facilitiesc. Auxiliary Power Supplyd. Communications/Electronics

6. Infrastructurea. Runwavs/Taxiwavs - Orientation, Dimensions, Materialb. Dispersals/Sheltersc. Other Main Buildings Including Hangars - Purpose,Location, Hardening

7. Support Facilities- Permanent /Temporary

a. Weapons Storageb. POLc. Power Facilitiesd. Supplye. Other

7. Experiment Equipment Requirements and Acquisition.

a. Primary Optical Equipment: Spaceborne Direct-View Optical System(SpaDVOS).

(1) SpaDVOS is a telescopic folded optical device which is capable of having itsmagnification changed from 4X to 60X, using removal eyepieces. Additionally, it was

designed to simultaneously transmit video images to a video recorder at the same timethe object is being observed. It was built to conform to all NASA space flight

1-6

qualification requirements and to accommodate single-person mounting, operation andremoval from the space shuttle aft flight deck overhead windows without the need forspecial tools. SpaDVOS was designed and built by the USAF Armstrong AerospaceMedical Research Lab (AAMRL) at Wright-Patterson AFB, OH with contract supportfrom the University of Dayton Research Institute. It was conceptually designed by Dr.Lee Task of AAMRL for human factors experiments proposed for the space shuttle.

Figure I-]i SpaDVOS Configuration Diagram

Looking "up" towardoverhead window Fwd Eyepiece

SStbd

CCD Camera Pentaprism & Keypad Display

Boy, _ J mg pitrF- Recessed. Panel

Relay ~~ Les Plca rs Power

S" , Main

Fuse

+ / Backup-LED Array \Relay Lens Fuse

Power•. Connector

7 1 , Video

Shiel plýOut

7 ].LED Board Sil

I-- -- •"----------------------------....._,

Vivitar Zoom Lens Main Electronic Board Power Converters

(2) Two SpaDVOS' were funded jointly by the Army and Air Force. One of thesewill be placed in the Post museum at Fort Huachuca, while the other will remain withAAMRL. A summary of pertinent SpaDVOS characteristics is in Appendix B.

1-7

b. Back up Optical Equipment.

(1) Fujinon binoculars, 14x70. Experiments carried out on board the space shuttleshould have back-up hardware and are required to have alternative plans forcompleting their objectives if unforeseen problems arise after launch. These binocularswere expected to provide minimum resolution required for the imagery analyst tocomplete experiment objectives if SpaDVOS malfunctioned. In addition, they could beused to assist locating targets and scanning target areas by other crew members. As aresult of performance during STS-44, NASA is considering the addition of thesebinocvlars as standard Shuttle equipment.

(2) Bausch & Lomb Discoverer spotting telescope, 15-60x. The spotting scope wasmanifested for the same purpose as the binoculars above. However, they were not usedon orbit.

c. Optical Resolution Panels.

The United States Army Electronic Proving Ground (USAEPG), supported byGeorgia Tech Research Institute (GTRI) provided optical resolution panels and test andevaluation (T&E) support to USAIC&FH for Terra Scout. USAEPG/GTRI supportincluded logistical support and technical preparation; pre-test simulation definition;and design, development, and test of the Optical Resolution Panels; and on-siteassistance. These panels were positioned at four locations for the experiment: CapeCanaveral, FL; Barbers Point, HI; and two sites in Australia. Australian locations weremanned by U.S. Army personnel with assistance from local organizations. Test supportdirection and control was accomplished at Fort Huachuca, AZ by USAEPG, supportedby COR, Inc., Sierra Vista, AZ. An example of the Optical Resolution Panels is providedbelow. Additional information on purpose, site data and results of using the OpticalResolution Panels is in Appendix C.

1-8

Figure 1-2 Optical Resolution Panel

A B

• 15'

- -

S--- 21' • 85'

O0*1

-30'

8. Experiment Limitations.

The original experiment design was constrained by a variety of factors. The firstconstraint was that the experiment was designed for only one on-orbit analyst becauseof the difficulty getting a Payload Specialist on the shuttle. An increase in the number ofon-orbit analysts would not likely have been approved for flight. The current SpaceTest Program and Space Transportation System (STS) was designed to accommodateexperimentation if there was space available on the shuttle after meeting allrequirements of a primary payload. Military-Man-In-Space (MMIS) experimentsrequiring a Payload Specialist were a low priority for manifesting on the shuttle byNASA. Payload Specialists were not a common element of the STS subsequent to thecatastrophic CHALLENGER accident in January, 1986 and required additional effort forplanning, training and integrating with the crew.

1-9

a. Based on having only one on-orbit analyst and the need to ensure a measure ofstatistical validity, approximately 20 (target) observation sites were determined to bethe minimum required. This is listed as a constraint because there was no guarantee thePS would be able to complete the minimum number of observations during a shuttlemission which was originally scheduled for only four days. As Terra Scout evolved,personnel of the U. S. Air Force Operating Location at Johnson Space Center recognizedthis as a valid concern and provided strong DoD support to the NASA offices desiringto extend the flight to 10 days in order to accomplish medical and extended durationorbital flight studies.

b. The primary hardware limitation was that the shuttle aft flight deck windowswere not designed for observations of the type desired during Terra Scout. However,during the process of developing Terra Scout, the optical quality of the windows wasevaluated by Aerospace Corporation and AAMRL. Results of these evaluations showedthat the aperture designed for the SpaDVOS was near optimum considering the pooroptical quality of the windows. Appendix B contains a summary of the Shuttle WindowOptical Test Results.

c. SpaDVOS was the choice of optics for Terra Scout for a variety of reasonsdescribed elsewhere in this report, and because of its high priority within the Space TestProgram. However, SpaDVOS was primarily designed for human factors experimentsto determine man's visual capability from low Earth orbit, and not originally intendedto provide the resolution desired for Terra Scout. Additionally, it was not originallydesigned to accommodate "through the lens" video recording. The decision to useSpaDVOS was made specifically because: 1) there was no other capability availableconsidering the limited funds provided by the Army for hardware development; 2)SpaDVOS did provide a satisfactory tool to use for a proof of concept experiment suchas Terra Scout; 3) Lessons learned from Terra Scout would provide information thatcould be used to further improve SpaDVOS's capability as an earth observation andrecordingdevice if desired.

d. During the mission there were no direct communications with the PayloadSpecialist (PS1) by the secondary payload/experiment support teams (described inSection II). Communications were routed through Mission Control because NASA doesnot traditionally permit direct communications between and the shuttle.

e. Support for Terra Scout was provided by a variety of organizations includingthe Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition (SARDA), U. S.Army Training and Doctrine Command, and the Army Space Program Office. Anapproximate breakdown of costs over a seven year period is as follows:

- Hardware Development and Training: $520K.- Training Plan Development: $10K.- TDY for Training and Management: $160K.- Resolution Target Fabrication and Deployment: $250K.

Army/USAIC&FH sub-total: $940K

1-10

- Payload Specialist Training: (paid by-DoD) S250KDoD total: $ .19M

I-I1

II CONDUCT OF EXPERIMENT.

1. General.

The Terra Scout Space Shuttle Experiment was organized and completed as a proofof concept in accordance with U. S. Army TRADOC policies. The basic process fordevelopment, submission, approval and prioritization of experiments for the Space TestProgram are described in Appendix G. Some of the steps required to complete specificactions for experiment development are dependent upon type, purpose, scope andrequirements, on a case by case basis for each experiment. Some of the steps taken indevelopment of Terra Scout were done in sequence, while many were donesimultaneously, and a few were updated continuously throughout the entire process.An outline of major phases of development and selected summaries are providedbelow. Additional information is provided in appendices to this report.

2. Experiment Phases.

a. Payload Specialist (PS) Selection. (see Appendix F)

Selecting a PS from among qualified personnel was a major effort. The Army isnot manned to accommodate positions for personnel not approved and authorized bythe Service Secretary, Secretary of Defense, or Congress. There are few positions forArmy personnel at NASA, and no positions for Payload Specialists. Support fromsenior leadership of the Army is required. In 1988, MG Parker, then CommandingGeneral of USAICSII51 , and LTG Weinstein, then DCSINT of the Army, provided thissupport for Terra Scout. They requested approval of General Thurman, the Vice Chiefof Staff of the Army. MG Parker directed the Army Military Intelligence Branch toconduct an Army-wide screen of all warrant officer (WO) and senior non-commissionedofficer (NCO) Imagery AnalystII- 2 records. In the Army, the bulk of expertise inimagery analysis resides within the WO and senior NCO ranks. Selection criteriaestablished by USAIC&FH required one WO and one NCO be selected, versus the besttwo overall from among the warrant and non-commissioned ranks. After the Army-wide records screen, four PS candidates were selected for interviews and physicalexaminations.

The final determination of payload specialist candidates for Terra Scout was madeby a selection board held in August, 1990 at USAIC&FH. CW3 Thomas Hennen wasselected as the primary, MSG Michael Belt was selected as the alternate/back-up, and athird candidate, CW3 John Hawker was selected as an alternate and retained to serve aspart of the experiment design and execution team. The fourth candidate was eliminatedas a result of the NASA physical examination.

II-1 United States Army Intelligence Center and School, re-designated United States Army IntelligenceCenter and Fort Huachuca in 1991.11-2 Army Military Occupational Specialty (MOS): 350D (962A until 1988) for Warrant Officer and 96D

for non-commissioned officer.

U-1

Figure U-1 Phase History

Name 1986 ]1987 [ 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 L1993Develop Objectives/Issues -

Data Collection/Research . . , =

-Technical i:

-Hardware = :

Concept Development

Develop Material Rqmts.

Develop Personnel Rqmts........ . . .. ... .. ....... ..... ............ ... . Ii i i

Payload Specialist

- Support Team -

Establish Funding Rqmt. , : . = .

Formal Experiment Request

Army and STP/MMIS Boards............

Army and STP/MMIS Boards

Army and ST../MMIS Boards

Army and STP/MMIS BoardsArmy and ST'P/MMIS Boards• i

Shuttle Integration Plan

HardwareS............. ..... .. ....... . ............................. ...-Instrumentation i i • ......... :

-Payload Specialist: i• •io;:•i-• i~.. ....... .......... ......... ! • "

Procure Hardware I

- Training System

- Developmental System ,

- Space QualificationS............... .... .... . ...................................

- Back-up=

Select Payload SpecialistS.................. ~......... ................. ...... i i

Payload Specialist Training

Hardware Training C -

- Astronaut Training

- Integration Training =

Mission Training

Launch 4

11-2

b. Training. (Additional information in Appendix F)

Training for Terra Scout was based on eight instructional areas taught during the19 months prior to the launch of STS-44. These include the following:

(1) Imagery Analysis and Review: This training was designed to enhance skills insearching, acquiring, tracking, and reporting on targets from space.

(2) Target imagery simulation and testing: Training accomplished two objectives;(a) familiarization for each PS with the speed at which the earth will move beneath theshuttle; and (b) establishing the difference in the imagery analysis abilities of the twoIA's prior to experiment execution.

(3) Flexible Image Generation System (FIGS) training: See paragraph c (2).

(4) Generic space instruction: Addressed the orbital environment and spacevehicle subsystems common to all spaceflight.

(5) Aircraft overflight simulation training: Provided confidence and realism inobserving comparable targets utilizing a rudimentary telescope arrangement.

(6) SpaDVOS training: Included assembly/disassembly, care, and operation, andflights on NASA Lear Jets and microgravity simulation aircraft using the actual flighthardware telesope.

(7) Physical training: Provided necessary physical and mental fitness for

spaceflight.

(8) Payload Specialist Training: See paragraph c.(3).

c. Training Locations.

(1) Fort Huachuca, AZ. (March 89-continuous) Although the PS candidates hadsignificant expertise in imagery analysis, additional imagery training for the experimentwas conducted at Fort Huachuca. This training primarily involved thoroughfamiliarization with pre-planned target sitesI- 3. Target files were made for each pre-planned target, which included a narrative description of the area, imagery of the area,and a sequence of images representing how the approach to the ground site wouldappear from space. Their performance during this training was also used as a factor indetermining which candidate would be selected as the primary PS based ondemonstrated retention of target inform ation.

H-3 A small number of ad hoc targets were passed to the IA while in orbit but the majority of targetswere pre-planned because each observation opportunity had to be programmed with the shuttle primarymission.

11-3

(2) Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, OH. (Sep 89-continuous)Approximately twelve training sessions were conducted on the Flexible ImageGeneration System (FIGS) simulation device at Wright-Patterson AFB, beginning inSeptember, 1989. FIGS replicates the operation of a space-borne telescope system whichis focused on terrestrial targets. Specifically, the simulator teaches each candidate tosearch, acquire, track, and observe targets which are in range for approximately 70seconds. The simulator presents examples of target types which will be used duringTerra Scout. This simulator does not replicate a weightless environment but is operatedby means of the same type of manual controls as SpaDVOS.

-During the training and development process SpaDVOS was mounted in aNASA Lear jet where training and system tests were conducted in flight.

-Several training sessions and system tests were also completed with SpaDVOSmounted in a NASA KC-135 microgravity environment training aircraft. Eachsession was conducted while the aircraft flew approximately 50 successivearching parabolas where the trainees experience a microgravity environment for20-25 seconds per parabola

(3) Johnson Space Center (JCS), Houston, TX. (Oct 90-launch)

-Astronaut crew training was conducted at JSC for both primary and back-up PScandidates beginning nearly one year prior to launch. Although only theprimary PS received complete "hands on" training, the back-up received the sameclassroom training and observed all of the hands on training with the crew.Crew and experiment integration training began nine months prior to launch.The PS was integrated with the crew members, extensively training together forthe specific mission. Emphasis was on shuttle operational requirements andindividual crewmember responsibilities. Once manifested for flight, the primaryPS/IA was given the call sign/designati6n of PSI.

-Programs for astronaut training, crew integration and mission training are

established and conducted by NASA.

3. Concept of Employment and Operation.

a. The SpaDVOS was developed, built and space qualified for use as the primaryoptical equipment for the experiment. SpaDVOS was not designed to provide optimumresolution but was low cost, provided a video recording capability, and wasdetermined to provide sufficient resolution for experiment purposes. Of considerableconcern to the Terra Scout experiment team was the fact that flight deck shuttlewindows are not designed to provide high optical quality. However, tests conductedon the shuttle windows showed that the SpaDVOS aperture was very near optimum forthe non-optical quality windows used during the experiment. SpaDVOS was operatedin both a manual mode and partially automated mode using an along-track motionmotor drive.

11-4

b. Approximately ninety ground target sites were selected by SME's. Target siteswere selected considering shuttle orbital parameters and were based on terrain, activity,and equipment or objects representative of typical military-related areas of interest.Optical Resolution Panels were also placed at four ground target sites with the intent ofaccurately measuring observable resolution and contrast values. These panels wereconfigured differently for each observation opportunity (orbit) in an attempt to performground resolution measurements. The analyst, PSI, attempted to report observation ofthe sites as many times as possible during the mission i. e., observation of the same sitewas attempted during each orbit the site was observable and time required forobservation was scheduled within the flight plan.

c. Target folders were prepared for each site. Folders included overhead images(large and medium scale), photographs, maps, EEI and general information, and spacefor recording observations.

d. The (daily) morning Text and Graphics (TAGS) message (delivered to the crewon-orbit) included site information for that dayI-4. The SpaDVOS was built with thecapability for PSI to input site information for up to four targets at a time. SpaDVOScould then provide PSI acquisition assistance during observation attempts bydisplaying cross-track and along-track reference to the target.

e. After achieving orbit and deployment of the STS-44 mission primary payload,PSI removed the SpaDVOS optical equipment from the stowage locker and mounted itto the aft flight deck overhead window.

f. Several minutes prior to overflight of each site, PSI completed checks on theSpaDVOS, reviewed the respective target folder, and prepared to acquire the site andrecord observations.

g. During the mission, another crew member (frequently the pilot, referred to asPLT) positioned himself in the forward portion of the flight deck to assist PSI'sacquisition of the prescribed site. PLT provided confirmation of off-track angle to thesite and apparent weather at the site.

h. PSI primarily used pre-selected geographic features to acquire and track thetarget. The previously described SpaDVOS acquisition assistance was through LEDindicators, viewable through the optics, which provided along-track and cross-trackinformation on the target. When the LED display was "zeroed", the target was withinthe SpaDVOS field of view. As the site emerged into view PSi manually acquired itand continually tracked, focused and zoomed the optical equipment to accomplish hisobservation. PSI verbally recorded actions taken to acquire and track the site, and eachobservation event.

[I-4 The TAGS message represents a daily situation and information report from Mission Control to theshuttle crew. It is normally prepared and transmitted each morning and can include messages forindividual crew members, activity changes, weather for areas to be observed, and any other information,

11-5

i. Initially the video recording of observations was to be transmitted to the groundwhere another IA, who was not limited by time, would analyze the imagery to see ifthere were differences in what was reported by PSI. Further, more detailed analysis ofthe video was to be accomplished after the mission. This part of the experiment waschanged because recorded images did not accurately reflect what was seen through theeyepiece of SpaDVOS and there was no means on this flight to transmit the imagery tothe ground. Instead, the video was used to later confirm ta.get area acquisition.Recordings of observations made by on-site observers and imagery provided throughnational technical means were also used as ground truth for verification of PSI'sobservations.

j. After launch, support operations were activated in the Secondary PayloadSupport Room (SPSR), Johnson Space Center (JSC), Houston, TX. The SPSR is a facilityco-located with the Mission Control Center - Houston (MCC-H) and is provided byNASA to accommodate secondary payload and experiment support personnel duringDoD shuttle missions. The support team consisted of the back-up PS, other members ofthe USAIC&FH Space Division and AAMRL who are the principal investigators anddevelopers of Terra Scout and SpaDVOS. The team established a schedule for aroundthe clock operations and communication (through mission control) to PSI. The primaryobjective of the experiment team was to perform troubleshooting activities for theSpaDVOS, collect in flight target data to the extent possible, and to conduct planning forchanges to the target list and immediate tasking to PSI if necessary. A limited numberof observations were passed from PSI to the support team during the mission. Ailcommunication between the support team and PSI were routed through the MCC-H,with the support team able to monitor transmissions between PSI and MCC-H.

h. After the mission, all data collected was returned to USAIC&FH for analysis

and reporting by Space Division.

4. Experiment Control.

a. Factor and Conditions. The following factors, conditions and controls were ineffect during the experiment.

Factors and Conditions Control LevelsRange Controlled By Orbit -200nmLight Conditions Controlled Varied - Predominantly DaylightTarget Movement Controlled No MovementTarget Arrays Varied Optical Resolution Panels - Controlled

Other - UncontrolledNBC N/A -

Terrain Systematically Predominantly Level or Gentle,Varied Rolling

Threat N/A

1U-6

Factors and Conditions Control LevelsObscuration Uncontrolled As OccurredPersonnel Held Constant Specific CriteriaOrganization Held Constant NASA/ USAICS/ AAMRLEnvironment (PS) Held Constant Shuttle EnvironmentEnvironment (Targets) Uncontrolled Same as ObscurationCommunications Uncontrolled Limited/Restricted bv NASA PolicyWeather Uncontrolled As OccurredSystems Operational Uncontrolled Limited Backup Capability On BoardStatus

b. Ground site targets.

(1) Optical Resolution Panels. (see Appendix C)

(2) Pre-planned and ad hoc sites.

Conditions for pre-planned and ad hoc sites were not controlled. An attempt wasmade to select ground target sites thought to provide acceptable viewing conditions ofprevailing weather and obscuration limitations, and sites were scheduled forobservation during periods of acceptable sun angle.

5. Data Collection and Reduction.

The original data collection plan is described in detail in the Terra ScoutExperiment Plan developed by Dr. George W. Lawton, Army Research Institute for theBehavioral and Social Sciences, January, 1989. The plan includes data collectionrequirements for preflight, on-orbit, and' post-flight phases of the experiment.Significant modifications to the original plan were necessary due to a number ofplanning and execution variables which were unknown or unconfirmed until launch.These are generally included below.

a. Preflight.

During the preflight phase, testing of the primary and back-up PS was conductedapproximately Launch minus one month (L-1). Testing consisted of each analyst havingone minute to look at each of approximately 30 photos. For preflight test purposes, oneminute corresponds approximately to the maximum time the analyst was expected tohave on orbit to analyze each site. After one minute the analyst was given 15 minutes togenerate a report on the observation. Reports were based on the EEl for that site basedon Mission/Target Category, and included time of report, subjective estimate onatmospheric haze, and an estimate of the NIIRS rating. Not all of the sites used duringthe preflight phase were among those actually planned for the experiment. Exact targetsites could not be selected prior to this phase because the actual orbital track for the

H1-7

shuttle mission was dependent on actual launch time. Therefore, the ability to selectimagery of all eventual pre-planned sites was not feasible. Regardless of this, imageryused for training included sites similar in type and variety as those desired forobservation by the on-orbit analyst during any shuttle mission.

b. On Orbit.

During the on-orbit phase, PSI followed essentially the same procedure for siteanalysis and reporting as during the preflight phase. One difference was that theanalysis was by direct view through SpaDVOS rather than analyzing film. Anotherdifference was the requirement to manually track, zoom and focus while performinganalysis in the microgravity environment of space. The SpaDVOS also allowed forsimultaneous video taping of the general area during analysis. During this phase PSIwas dynamically tasked by ground support personnel in MCC-H to attempt acquisition,tracking, analysis and reporting on ad hoc ground sites, and report observations ofbonus sites not scheduled as primary but within the primary target area. On-orbit datacollection was divided into two parts: pre-planned and ad hoc sites, and resolution sites.

(1) Pre-planned and ad hoc (non-resolution) site data collection was accomplishedby the SpaDVOS video and audio recording while PSI observed ground sites in realtime using the SpaDVOS optics for acquisition, tracking, and analysis. Sites included avariety of locations and activities, primarily areas representative of possible militaryinterest. Ground truth imagery was provided for some sites through other sources.

(2) Resolution site data collection. In addition to the SpaDVOS recordings,weather and the resolution grid panel configurations (ground truth) were recorded byon site personnel.

c. Post flight.

(1) For ad hoc and pre-planned, non-resolution panel sites, imagery SMEs of SpaceDivision, USAIC&FH accomplished data reduction manually. Data reduction consistedof comparing the target files used by PSI, the INFLIGHTREP completed by PSI whileon orbit, ground truth imagery provided through national technical means, and in a fewcases, the SpaDVOS video. Additional data was derived from NASA post mission crewdebriefings and questionnaires completed by crewmembers of STS-44.

The SpaDVOS video was expected to provide imagery of target sites acquired byPSI. The video would provide one tenth of the area visible to PSI and at least an orderof magnitude less resolution. Video frames extracted from the SpaDVOS recordingwould be analyzed by SMEs following normal Reconnaissance Exploitation Reporting(RECCEXREP) procedures and timelines (approximately 15 minutes). They would nothave the constraints of PSI in terms of time, microgravity, and the requirement tomanually acquire, track and focus. A comparison of differences between PSI and theunconstrained SMEs was intended. Finally, these results were to be combined andcompared with other ground truth in the final report.

H-8

It was suspected during the mission that analysis of the vide recording would beimpossible. For most target sites, as the aperture on SpaDVOS was adjusted foroptimum observation by PSI, it prevented enough light from passing through the opticsonto the CCD array of the SpaDVOS, therefore not providing enough light for videocapture. Post flight analysis of the SpaDVOS video confirmed this suspicion. Short,marginally viewable portions were compared to PSI's observations to the extentpossible. However, the audio track on the tape did provide significant site andcharacterization data.

(2) For optical resolution panel sites, ground truth was recorded by on-sitesupport personnel at the four world wide locations. Data included current weather andvisibility, and specific pattern layout within the resolution panel grids. This data wasanalyzed and provided to USAIC&FH by USAEPG. (Appendix C)

d. According to STS-44 crew debriefing and post flight analysis, atmosphericobscuration was severe during STS-44 and a distinct detriment to the experiment. Thelack of a sufficient number of clear weath?,r sites prevented accurate statiE:icalmeasurement. Analysis of upper atmospheric conditions and obscurants wasperformed by NASA and provided in a Darkest Object Identification Report. Thisreport is included as Appendix D to this report.

11-9

III EXPERIMENT RESULTS.

The Terra Scout space experiment took place on board the space shuttleATLANTIS, Space Transportation System (STS) mission 44. STS-44 was launched fromKennedy Space Center (KSC), FL, 23:44:00 Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), 24 November1991. The mission was planned to orbit approximately 200 nautical miles at aninclination of 28.5 degrees for 10 days and return for landing at KSC. Due to amalfunction in the shuttle back-up navigation ecuipment the mission was terminatedthree days early and ATLANTIS landed at Edwards Air Force Base, CA 22:34:42 GMT, 1Dec 1991.

1. Experiment Issues.

a. Issue 1. Real time Analysis. Real time analysis of ground sites can heaccomplished by a trained Imagery Analyst on board a low Earth orbiting platform.

(1) Review and analysis of mission data collected, and results of payload crewdebriefing, indicates a significant degree of success for the United States Army SpaceShuttle Experiment, Terra Scout. Although not easily quantified, there is sufficient datato state that the objectives of Terra Scout weremet. With improvements in optical andrecording capability, an analyst/expert could provide a distinct advantage in Earthobservation from future orbiting platforms if real time analysis of military activity isdesired from that platform.

(2) Acquisition and tracking of pre-planned, ad hoc, and ground site targets ofopportunity can be accomplished using SpaDVOS from a low-earth orbiting platform.Due to the shuttle windows, SpaDVOS does not provide resolution necessary fordetailed analysis and provides marginal resolution for limited terrain analysis andsituation development.

b. Issue 2. Space-borne Direct View Optical System. (SpaDVOS)

The SpaDVOS is suitable as primary optical (telescope) equipment for thisexperiment, but inadequate for recording with its current CCD array.

(1) As stated elsewhere in this report, the Terra Scout team's use of SpaDVOS wasadvantageous for both the USAIC&FH and AAMRL. SpaDVOS was not originallydesigned specifically for Terra Scout, and thus did not provide the high quality videorecording output desired for post-mission analysis. As previously identified in SectionI, Limitations, the aft flight deck overhead windows in the space shuttle are not opticalquality windows and thus do not accommodate larger aperture optics or highresolution, detail viewing or video recording optics. Although these factors aresignificant, they were considered to be within satisfactcrv limits for a proof of conceptexperiment to determine if a trained analyst could provide usable information through

1II-1

ground site analysis from an orbiting platform. With development and design ofspecific optical equipment for this purpose, the trained analyst would provide adistinctly new capability.

(2) SpaDVOS is capable of providing resolution to 24 feetI- 1, the best resolutionrecorded during Terra Scout. Due to the poor optical quality of the shuttle windows,atmospheric conditions of weather and other obscurants, and other factors impairingcontrast, the best resolution that could be routinely expected should be considered as 50to 80 feet. The field of view is adequate. The along- and cross-track ability is limitedbut it is very easy to aim, acquire and track a ground target with SpaDVOS, when thealong- and cross-track cueing function is operating correctly. Although there weremalfunctions during the experiment, SpaDVOS should not be considered prone tomalfunction. The recording capability is poor and should not be relied upon unlesssignificant improvements are made.

c. Issue 3. Operations Security. There is an impact on Operations Securityresulting from Earth observation from a manned orbiting platform.

PS1 was able to acquire and track specific target sites accurately and, if desired,would be able to observe activity that could impact operations security.

d. Issue 4. Coloristics. There apparently are sights observable from Earth orbit bythe human eye that can not be reproduced through photography and relatedtechnology.

(1) Based on the survey of astronauts and PSIs comments, color, patterns, andshades of color or light are observable during orbit but not accurately reproducible bymechanical means. These are among the most commonly cited phenomena byastronauts. While on orbit and during post-mission debriefing, PS1 indicated that colorgreatly assisted in target acquisition and identification. Although Terra Scout did notprovide measurable data for an absolute determination of this issue, the experimentserved to increase awareness of the need for further study.

(2) The former Soviet Union has for years used their Salvut and Mir orbitalstations to accumulate vast amounts of information concerning effects of space andatmosphere on observation of earth from orbit. They have determined that there aremany sights (phenomena) that cannot be reproduced by mechanical imaging systemsand have developed coloristic experiments as part of their studies in the advantages ofearth observation from space by the human eye. A significant finding is described asthe constancy of eyesight. There are many kinds of constancy, such as that of therelative depth and orientation of objects. The most significant constancy is of colorperception that prevails even when the light spectrum changes. This property makes it

111-1 PSI was able to see the 15-foot-wide grid lines on the resolution panels. However, these are linearfeatures and do not represent true resolution capability.

111-2

possible for observers to overcome obscuring phenomena such as atmospheric haze,blotting shadows and patches of sunlight111 -2 . Based on responses provided by formerastronauts and PS1, these ideas appear to hold true and validate the need for in-depthexperimentation.

e. Issue 5. Army Requirements. The Space Shuttle is not a viable platform foroperational application of real time Earth observation and analysis. However, it is wellsuited for conducting research, development (R&D), and experiments in related Earthobservation concepts. This is another area which o,;r Soviet counterparts have beencapitalizing on for years.

(1) The utility of the current shuttle program for conducting real-time Departmentof Defense observations is marginal at best As previously stated, the shuttle's primarymissions are to place and repair satellites in orbit, conduct R&D and experimentation.Given these missions, observation of specified or ad hoc ground sites is serendipitous.Considering coincidence of normal shuttle orbital inclination, and international Defenserequirements, there is litt'e opportunity for the PS or astronaut to observe and reportrequisite ground site observation data on a regular or dependable basis.

(2) The major advantage in using the current shuttle program for earthobservation appears to be in research and development from the payload bay. In theareas of Earth observation and remote sensor development the Shuttle provides thefollowing:

- A controllable platform in many attitudes and configurations.

- More easily returnable payloads. The shuttle is based on the concept ofreturnable and recoverable payloads and in-space repair or refueling ofpayloads.

- Actual space environment instead of theory or lab simulation. Duration can bevaried for experiment purposes.

- During research, development and engineering check-out, the shuttle is costeffective compared to numerous large, expendable boosters, and canaccommodate engineers or technicians who can perform on-the-spot correctionsor modifications if needed.

f. Additional data contribution. The analytical skills of a Payload Specialist (PS)who is a professional imagery analyst provides advantages over those of a professionalastronaut who is not a trained IA.

111-2 Excerpts from an article in V Mire Nauki, the Russian language edition of Scientific American.reprinted in the English edition, Scientific American, July 1989.

111-3

(1) The authors of this report believe Terra Scout provides evidence of advantagesin using a trained IA for Earth observation experiments with objectives similar to that ofTerra Scout. The advantages for specific experiments are significant when a particularskill is needed. A PS is selected as the best person for the task. Therefore, he is betterand more intensively trained on the experiment specific tasks. He is more available forfeedback and provides feedback to the experimenters in a common language, whichmakes it easier to relate his experiences.

(2) There has not been a previous experiment or test of an astronauts' ability toperform ground site analysis of the type, purpose, and level of detail of Terra Scout. Itis clear to the authors that follow-on experimentation should be accomplished toquantify advantages or differences in perception of ground observables from space.

(3) There have been no military analysts on board the shuttle who are comparableto PSI. The majority of astronauts are pilots, or scientists who have some measure ofEarth observation experience, but they do not have the in-depth training and experienceas PSI in Earth observation for purposes of situation and target development oroperational planning.

A pilot is trained to look for objects on the ground primarily to aid navigation ortargeting, and occasionally to report activity. An imagery analyst is trained to performa systematic, detailed, in-depth analysis, deriving much more than object recognitionand location. An analyst is trained to develop a complete picture of who, what, why,for what purpose, then report his results in militarily relevant terms. Frequently,contrasting shades and shadows on the ground are more significant to an ImageryAnalyst than the ability to clearly see objects. Looking at objects on the ground fro-, apilot's perspective, (as targets or as points of reference for navigation), should not becompared to the approach taken by an imagery analyst. To a pilot, a large petroleumtank farm is a target or a commonly used reference point. To an analyst it represents anentire network of roads, equipment, communications and other activity, and can conveythrough analysis the intentions of the controlling unit or organization.

2. Summary of Experiment Data.

The following chart shows ground site observation attempts by PSI. They arelisted in order of orbit number and MET"'l- 3 . PSI observations are listed in the "PSIReport" column. Confirmation of both weather and PSI Reports was made by on-sitepersonnel, National Technical Means, review of the SpaDVOS video, and NationalOceanographic and Atmospheric Administration weather information.

111-3 MET is the time scale used for space shuttle missions and is based on time of launch. It begins at

launch and includes the day of the mission and elapsed time since launch. For example, 0:02:01:01 islaunch day, 2 hours, one minute and one second after launch. MET is occasionally preceded by the orbitnumber i.e., 2/0:02:01.01.

111-4

Orbit/Location/MET WX/Remarks PS1 Report17/Learmonth, AUS Acquired resolution grid and circles.01/01:3018/ Ford Island, HI Equipment Not acquired.01/01:56 Malfunction20/Pretoria City, S. Africa 9ram lens Not acquired.01/06.-02 Hazy,20/Diego Garcia 21mm lens Airport active, serviceable. Five possible large swept01/06:14 wing aircraft on main concrete parking ramp. NIIRS 3.

During tracking, clouds began to obscure main parkingramp.

21 /Kampong, Thailand 9am lens Airport active, occupied, serviceable.01/06:26"Helicopter Assembly No abnormal activity.Building"*Quay/Rail Siding Normal activity."Ship Activity Normal merchant ship activity21 /Usakos, Namibia Re-planned, Acquired/identified.01/07:37 replaced Harare,

S. Africa30 /Brisbane, AUS Hazy Haze too dense for clear observation.01/21:1830 /Cape Canaveral, F1 Cloud Cover Not acquired.35 /Anderson, Guam Typhoon Yuri Not acquired.02/03:4535 /Maputo City, Hazy Atmosphere too bad for analysis.Mozambique02/04:56"*Naval Base Pier was visible."*Naval Headquarters ,,, Acquired/identified."*Training Facilitv Acquired/identified36 /US Embassy Manilla, Hazy Obscured by haze. (SpaDVOS video viewable)Philippines02/05:22"*Mt. Pinatubo Obscured by clouds."*Subic Ba Minimum zoom Acquired/identified."*Manilla Bay Minimum zoom Acquired/identified."*CaviteNavv Base Minimum zoom Acquired/identified.36 /Bulawayo, Zimbabwe Hazy/Cloud Acquired late due to weather Located intersecting02/06:33 cover runwavs.45 /Brisbane, AUS Overcast, storm Not acquired.02/20:12

46 /Christmas Island Input error Not acquired.02 /21:55

47 /Useless Loop, AUS No significant activity.02/23:17"*Airstrip Acquired/identified dirt airstrip."*Pier Acquired/identified. No activity noted.51 /Gabarone Airport, Cloud cover Observed major NE road to Gabarone through break inBotswana clouds.03/05:21

Orbit/Location/MET WX/Remarks PSI Report52 /Sattahip, Thailand Hazy Acquired/identified03/05:4761 /Managua 2, Cuba Cloud cover Not acquired.03/19:39*Managua 1, Cuba Acquired/identified.62/Cape Canaveral, FI Acquired resolution grid and circles03/21:1862/Alice Springs, AUS Acquired /identified.03/22:1063 /Learmonth, AUS Acquired visually with binoculars. Resolution grid and03/23:47 circles.64 /Ford Island, HI Cloudy Acquired/identified. Clouds covered east end of04/00:13 runway. Could not see resolution targets.*Lualualei Cloud cover Not acquired.*Hickarn Airbase Cloudy Acquired/identified.*International Airport Acquired/identified."Barber's Point Acquired/identified.66 /Pretoria City, S. Africa Low sun angle/ Roads visible in/around area. Airfield not visible.04/04:13 Hazy.76 /Brisbane AUS Cloudy Acquired04/19:3477/Cape Canaveral, Fl Acquired resolution grid and circles.04/20:1078/Cape Canaveral, Fl Cloud cover Acquired/identified.04/21:47"Tampa Int'l Airport ..... ___ ...._Acquired/identified.

*MacDill AFB , Acquired/identified."Melbourne Airport ....... _Acquired/identified.

"Patrick AFB Acquired/identified81 /Spratly Islands Cloud cover Added Opportunity05/03:2682 /US Embassy, Madlla Hazy Acquired/identified.Philippines05/03:37*Manilla Bay Acquired/identified.91 /Santiago, Cuba Acquired/identified.05/17:26"*SAM-2 site Acquired/identified.'Guantanamo Airfield Acquired/identified.92/Cape Canaveral, Fl Cloud Cover Acquired/identified.05/19:0292 /Baurefield, New Cloud cover Acquired/identified.Hebrides05/20:0893 /Christnas Island Light cloud cover Airport unoccupied. Usable for small aircraft. Building05/20:19 off edge of large concrete apron.93/Cape Canaveral, Fl Cloud cover Not acquired.

111-6

a. Pre-planned ground sites, including optical resolution panel sites.

For the planned ten day mission of STS-44, forty-two (42) acquisition attemptswere scheduled. Due to early return of the shuttle, 31 of those planned were actuallyattempted. PSI was able to positively acquire, identify and track 24 of 31 plannedground sites, representing 77.4%.

(1) Of the 31 planned sites attempted, 2 were unsuccessful due to equipmentmalfunction and input errors.

18/Ford Island, HI46/Christmas Island

(2) Of the 31 planned sites attempted, 5 were unsuccessful due to cloud cover orobscuration such that the area could not be acquired/identified.

20/Pretoria City, S. Africa30/Cape Canaveral, FL35/Anderson, Guam45/Brisbane, AUS61 /Managua 2, Cuba

(3) Of the 31 planned sites, 24 were acquired/identified. Cloud cover and hazeseverely impaired detailed analysis, however, conditions at 8 sites allowed limitedanalysis.

17/Learmonth, AUS (resolution panel)20/Diego Garcia21 /Kampong, Thailand47/Useless Loop, AUS62/Cape Canaveral, FL (resolution panel)63/Learmonth, AUS (resolution panel)64/Ford Island, HI77/Cape Canaveral, FL (resolution panel)

(4) The remainder of sites were positively acquired, identified and tracked butconditions combined with resolution of optical equipment did not allow detailedanalysis.

b. Ad hoc and bonus ground sitesIll-4.

1I1-4 Bonus targets are additional targets picked up in the area of a primary site when the primary site

was cloud covered or as time allowed after PSI completed analysis of the primary site on that pass.

111-7

Twenty-three (23) attempts to acquire bonus and ad hoc sites were recorded.Three of these were tasked as ad hoc targets by the support team during the experimentand were successfully acquired by PSI with no prior notice and without the aid of atarget folder. Nineteen (19) of the 23 were acquired and identified, representing 82.6%.

Planned Bonus21 /Kampong, Thailand 1. helicopter assembly building

2. rail siding at the quay

35/Maputo City, Mozambique 3. naval base4. naval headquarters (NA*)5. training facility (NA*)

36/US Embassy, Manilla 6. Mt. Pinatubo7. Subic Bay8. Manilla Bay9. Cavite navy base

47/Useless Loop, AUS 10. airstrip11. pier

61/Managua 2, Cuba 12. Managua 1, Cuba

64/Ford Island, HI 13. Lualualei (NA*)14. Hickam Airbase15. International Airport16. Barber's Point

78/Cape Canaveral, FL 17. Tampa International Airport18. MacDill AFB19. Melbourne Airport20. Patrick Airfield

82/US Embassy, Manilla 21. Manilla Bay

91/Santiago, Cuba 22. SAM-2 site23. Guantanamo Airfield

*NA = not acquired

c. A combined total of 57 ground site observation attempts were recorded.Acquisition, tracking and positive identification was recorded for 37 sites, representing64.9%. Another 10 site locations were acquired and tracked, but not positively identifieddue to obscuring phenomena. Therefore, a total of 47 of the 57 sites were acquired andtracked, representing 82.5%

111-8

d. Optical resolution panel sites.

There were 10 passes over the four resolution panel sites including two passes eachover Brisbane and Ford Island which were weathered out. There were four passes overthe site at Cape Canaveral; two of these were weathered out, one was a very low sunangle, and one was near the maximum cross-track capability of the SpaDVOS. Despitethese conditions, the resolution grid and 80 foot disk were identified in their correctorientation. There were two passes over the site at Learmouth. The first pass was thefirst Terra Scout target of the mission and the grid and 80 foot disk were properlyidentified. There was an equipment problem on the second pass and the site wasacquired late. The grid was seen and reported by another crew member and describedwith some accuracy down to the 24 foot disk. Based on data collected, 80 foot resolutionis attainable using the mission optical equipment under a variety of conditions, whileresolution to 24 feet is occasionally possible.

(1) The effect of weather conditions and haze present a distinct impact. (SeeAppendix D for NASA study on impact of atmospheric effects.)

(2) The relatively small sample size of resolution panel observations does notallow for determination of the exact percentage of observability that could normally beexpected by target, or :v typical shuttle mission.

3. Conclusion.

The objective of Terra Scout was accomplished, but more importantly, resultsshow several issues need further research and follow-on experimentation.

a. Improvement in optical quality of the shuttle windows should be a part of anyfuture experiment if high resolution Earth observation or photography from the aftflight deck are of interest.

b. PS1 demonstrated that a trained analyst is capable of earth observation andanalysis and flexibility of the man-in-the-loop was demonstrated on several occasions.PS1 was able to report bonus targets based on his experience and judgment of theirvalue without being tasked. He was able to observe and report on ad hoc sites tasked tohim with little advance notice. He was able to independently compensate for hardwarefailures and provided a significant value added level of control over experimentalhardware, techniques, and data gathering.

c. It is the conclusion of this report that Terra Scout was an overall success andrelated follow-on experimentation, research and development should be pursued.However, continued funding for technologies supporting programs such as "Light Sats"and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) is the recommended path for satisfying currentArmy requirements and solving expected future deficiencies. There is no current Armyplan or program for dedicated manned, low-earth orbit platforms for earth observation.

111-9

IV FUTURE EXPERIMENTATION.

1. Terra Scout was an excellent start for the Army in the Department of DefenseMilitary Man in Space Program. The MMIS program was established to provideopportunities for experimentation and determination of techniques, technologies andcapabilities supporting military and civilian requirements from space. A review of thehistory for development and completion of Terra Scout provides insight to Armyparticipation in STP/MMIS programs but describes a long and difficult process. TheArmy has always been deeply involved with responsibilities for space and relatedballistic missile defense but has begun to recognize other potential space operationapplications. There are many concepts to pursue.

2. The affect of adverse weather and atmospheric conditions during Terra Scouthampered the collection of data to support all objectives. The SpaDVOS resolution andrecording capabilities were satisfactory for proof of concept but inadequate for detaileddata collection or operational capabilities. Experimentation should be conducted usingother imaging sensors and technologies such as Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) andMulti-spectral and Hyper-spectral Imaging (MSI and HSI). These technologies are notgenerally as effected by weather and atmospheric obscuration.

3. Much has been written on related concepts and studies in coloristics from earthorbit. Data obtained from the Terra Scout experiment serves to act in support of someof the previous hypothesis and findings in this area. Operational utility of'live colorscene data from the shuttle is marginal due to factors of mission and orbital geometry,but further experimentation in methods of earth observation is warranted.

4. A follow-on experiment, Terra Scout II (TSII) is under development byUSAIC&FH, and was rated number 10 of 26 experiments by the 1992 Joint Military Man

in Space (MMIS) board. Terra Scout II is a complex secondary payload in that the PSwill control a payload bay sensor from the mid-deck. Analysis will be performed onboth pre-selected targets and ad hoc targets cued via an air-ground voicecommunications link. A higher inclination flight is highly desired but not required.The payload equipment margin required will be approximately 150-200 kg in additionto a PS.

Terra Scout II will have broad military applications based on requirements

identified by each of the services. The potential to show how these requirements maybe satisfied warrants giving it the highest rating.

In support of USAIC&FH, team of government and civilian scientists and subjectmatter experts are in the process of detailed experiment design, equipment selectionand development. Team members include the following: Jet Propulsion Laboratory(JPL), Pasadena, California; MIT/Lincoln Laboratory, Lexington, Massachusetts; ArmySpace and Technology Research Office, Topographic Engineering Center, Fort Belvoir,Virginia; and Aerospace Corporation, Los Angeles, California.

IV-1

Most of 1992 has been used to gather information on existing databases andhardware prototypes for Terra Scout II which is planned to be ready for launch in 1995.Terra Scout II represents a quantum leap in technology, depth of experimental design,objective, purpose, and data gathering capability. The shuttle provides an excellentplatform to conduct this experiment in support of remote sensing system research andcontinued development of emerging sensor technology.

IV-2

APENDI1X A

NASA Mission STS-44 Flight Crew Report

A-1

O.S. Gov

National Aeronautics and I'J \ ASpace Aodmnistration

Lyndon B. Johnson Space CenterHouston, Texas77058

'vto All. of CB -92-!96 July 14, 1992

TO: CA/Director, Flight Crew Operations, /

THRU: CB/Acting Chief, Astronaut Office

FROM: CB/Commander, STS-44

SUBJECT: STS-44 Flight Crew Report

The STS-44 flight crew report is herewith enclosed.

c: ick OGregory

cc:

See attached list

CB/FDGregory:jmg: 7/13/92:32796

.... . -. . n1L rew Report june 1S, L992

cc:NASA HeadauarterSM/J. W. Pearson III

NASA Ames Research Center0/0. L. Compton

NASA Kennedy Space CenterCD/R. L. CrippenMK/B. H. Shaw, Jr.TM/J. F. Honeycutt

NASA Marshall Space Flight CenterDAO1/T. J. Lee

NASA Johnson Space CenterAA/A. CohenAB/P. J. WeitzAC/D. A. NebrigAC5/J. W. YoungCA/D. R. PuddyCA2/A. C. BeallCA3/D. H. FinneyCA4/S. G. AndrewsCA4/C. N. MajorCA4/R. A. MastracchioCA44/0. J. BertrandCB/D. C. BrandensteinCB/All Astronauts (95)CB/K. P. ColganCB/H. E. ReamCB/M. J. SanchezCC/R. J. NaughtonCC5/C. F. HayesDA/E. F. KranzDA/J. W. O'NeillDA2/T. W. HollowayDA3/S. G. BalesDA8/B. R. StoneDF/J. KnightDG/J. A. WegenerDH/E. L. PavelkaDK/K. W. RussellDM/J. C. HarpoldEA/H. 0. PohlEC/W. E. EllisGA/L. S. NicnolsonIA/W. J. HuffstetlerKA/J. W. AaronMJ/T. R. LoeNA/C. S. HarlanPA/R. L. BerrySA/C. L. HuntoonSP/C. 0. PernerT-A/C. H. Lambert, Jr.TC/D. S. GrissomTC2/F. W. BrizzolaraTC3/D. 0. DeAtkineTC4/R. M. SwalinVA/D. M. GermanyvP/C. E. McCulloughWA/L. G. WilliamsWG/S. N. Hardee

Table of Contents

I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

II. Pre-Flight Activities .......... ....................... 2

A. Training .............. ................ . ...... 2

1. Scheduling/Workload ......... .................. 3

2. Training Objectives ....... ................... 4

3. Inertial Upper Stage/Defense Support Program ......... 4

4. Extended Duration Orbiter/Detailed Supplementary

Objectives ........... ....................... 5

5. Detailed Test Objective ...... ................. 5

6. Military Man-In-Space (M88-1) ...... ............. 5

7. Terra Scout .......... ....................... 6

8. Air Force Maui Optical System ...... .............. 6

9. In-Flight Maintenance ....... .................. 7

10. Wireless Communication System ...... .............. 7

B. Flight Data File ........... ...................... 7

C. Sleep Shift..... .......... ...................... 7

III. Launch Countdown and Ascent .............. ................ 8

IV. On Orbit .............. ............................. 10

A. Significant On-Orbit Anomalies ..... ............... 10

B. Post Insertion .......... ... ...................... U!

C. Defense Support Program ...... .................. .. 11

D. Detailed Supplementary Objectives ...... ............. 12

1. DSO 316 Bioreactor ....... ................... 12

2. 0SO 472 Intraocular Pressure ...... .............. 12

3. 0SO 478 Lower Body Negative Pressure .............. 12

4. 0SO 608 Metabolism/Exercise Testing ..... .......... 13

E. Development Test Objectives (DTO) ...... ............. 13

F. Terra Scout ...... ... ........................ . 13

G. Military Man in Space/M88-1 .... ............... .... 15

H. Payload Bay Experiments ......... .................. 17

I. Miadeck Experiments ........... .................... 18

1. Radiation Monitoring Experiment-Ill . .......... ... 18

2. Shuttle Activation Monitor ..... .............. ... 18

j. Earth Observations ....... ... ..................... 8

K. Photography/Television ....... ................... 9

L. Orbiter Systems, Flight Crew Equipment, and

Other Miscellaneous Observations .................. .20

M. On Orbit Assessment and Planning with MCC ........... .. 22

V. De-orbit Preparation ana Entry ....... ...................

22

VI. Postlanding ........... ........................... ... 24

Appendix I Summary of Recommendations ....... ................. 24

Appendix II List of Abbreviations ....... ................. .. 29

STS- 44

FLIGHT CREW REPORT

ci

44

Frederick D. Grego Terence T. Henrick Dr. Story •M us

Colonel, U S. ALr Force Colonel, U S. Air t(,rce Mission SpeciLalst

Commander Pilot

James S. Voss 7/Marty Ru'. homas J. Hennen

t. Colonel. U. S. Army 44. Commander. C' S. Navy CW3. U. S. Army

Mission Specialist Misslon Specialist Payload Specialtst

o.S. Gov I

I. INTRODUCTION

The Space Shuttle ATLANTIS, on Mission STS-44, was launched from Pad 39A atthe Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida, on November 24, 1991, at 6:44 p.m.EST, for a scheduled ten-day mission. Atlantis was flown into a 195-nauticalmile (NM) circular orbit, at an inclination of 28.5 degrees, using a directinsertion to apogee followed by an Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) burn forcircularization. This was the forty-fourth flight of the Space ShuttleProgram, and the tenth flight of the Orbiter Atlantis. The mission wasdeclared a Minimum Duration Flight (MOF) following the failure of InertialMeasurement Unit (IMU) 2. The mission ended, three days earlier thanscheduled, on December 1, 1991, at 2:34 p.m. PST, after 110 orbits, with alanding at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB), California, on lakebed Runway 05.Mission duration was 6 days, 22 hours, 52 minutes, and 27 seconds. The sixcrew members on board were:

Frederick 0. Gregory, Colonel, United States Air ForceCommander (CDR)

Terence T. Henricks, Colonel, United States Air ForcePilot (PLT)

James S. Voss, Lieutenant Colonel, United States ArmyMission Specialist 1 (MSI)

Story Musgrave, MDMission Specialist 2 (MS2)

Mario Runco, Jr., Lieutenant Commander, United States NavyMission Specialist 3 (MS3)

Thomas J. Hennen, Chief Warrant Officer 3, United States ArmyPayload Specialist (PS)

Atlantis was successfully launched on the second launch attempt. The firstlaunch attempt, on November 19, 1991, was scrubbed because of a RedundantInertial Measurement Unit (RIMU) failure on the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS).This RIMU was removed and replaced.

The primary objective of STS-44 was the deployment of the Defense SupportProgram (DSP) satellite. Numerous other secondary experiments, DevelopmentTest Objectives (OTOs), and Detailed Supplementary Objectives (OSOs) wereconducted. These are listed below.

Payload BayaExperiments

Interim Operational Contamination Monitor (IOCM)

Middeck Experiments

Terra ScoutMilitary Man in Space (MMIS/M88-1)Air Force Maui Optical System (AMOS)Cosmic Radiation Effects and Activation Monitor (CREAM)

1

Shuttle Activation Monitor (SAM)Radiation Monitoring Experiment-Ill (RME-III)Visual Function Tester-i (VFT-1)

Detailed Supplementary Objectives

SO 316 Bioreactor/Flow and Particle Trajectory in Microgravity0SO 463 In-flight Halter Monitoring0SO 472 Intraocular PressureOSO 478 Lower Body Negative Pressure (LBNP)0SO 603 Orthostatic Function During Entry, Landing and EgressOSO 604 Visual-Vestibular Integration as a Function of Adaptation (OI-1&3)OSO 605 Postural Equilibrium Control During Landing and EgressOSO 608 Metabolism/Exercise testing0SO 611 Air Monitoring Instrument Evaluation and Atmosphere

CharacterizationDSO 613 Endocrine RegulationDSO 614 Head and Gaze Stability During Locomotion0SO 901 Documentary TelevisionOSO 902 Documentary Motion Picture Photography0SO 903 Documentary Still Photography

Development Test Objectives

OTO 242 Entry Aerodynamic Control Surface TestTO 301D Ascent Structural Capability Evaluation

0TO 3070 Entry Structural Capability0TO 312 External Tank (ET) Thermal Protection System PerformanceOTO 520 Edwards Lakebed Runway Bearing Strength and Rolling Friction

Assessment for Orbiter Landing0TO 645 Combustion Products Analyzer

TO 649 Shuttle Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) Rehydratable Food PackageEvaluation

DTO 797 Star Line Maneuver Validation

In this report, only pertinent comments, observations, and recommendationsconcerning the mission, relative to either training or flight, will bediscussed. If a topic is not mentioned, it was nominal or had been debriefedby previous crews and did not warrant further comment.

II. PREFLIGHT

A. Training

The training provided by the Shuttle Mission Simulator (SMS) training teamwas excellent, extremely professional, and thorough. Support by the TrainingDivision to accommodate preparation for the mission, including non-CrewTraining Catalog activities, was superb. The crew scheduled extra time fornon-cataloged nominal activities in the SMS, the Crew Compartment Trainer(CCT) trainer, and the Single System Trainer.

2

'J.S. Gov t

1. Schedule/Workload

The flight crew was assigned to STS-44 in May 1990 for a scheduled March 1991launch. The mission slipped until July 1991 and subsequently to November1991. A payload specialist to support the military experiment Terra Scoutwas added to the crew in July 1990. The mission was extended from four daysto ten days in November 1990 with the addition of the EDO associated SOs.The crew commenced full-time training in February 1991 following the"standard" training template. With the launch slip from July until November,"stanoard" training was temporarily suspended for three months and duringthat time the crew training was reduced to a minimum or "maintenance" level,returning to the "standard" in August 1991. Even though the crew took fiveone-week vacations during the period July 1990 to August 1991, it was stillon or ahead of the Catalog training schedule.

Considerable effort was expended in arranging the schedule to prevent a "bowwave" of activities in the last several weeks prior to launch. The "bowwave" was reduced but the actual hours spent in training during the last fourmonths before flight were excessive. The crew believed that the followingCatalog requirements could be completed earlier In the flow as part of "pilotpool" training:

Photography/Television (TV) equipmentIntravehicular Activity (IVA) trainingExtravehicular Activity (EVA) pre/post trainingIn-Flight Maintenance (IFM) trainingLaunch and Entry Suit (LES) familiarityCrew escape systems trainingVertical Orbiter reach and visibility with LES introductionCrew systems/habitability equipment and trainingPost Insertion/De-orbit Preparation familiarity

If this training were received prior to mission assignment, only refresher orproficiency training would be required during the mission-specific trainingflow.

RECOMMENDATION: Accomplish as mich training as Possible before crewassigrnent.

The Catalog includes requirements that support normal Orbiter activities.These include but are not limited to ascent, post .isertion/deorbitpreparation, orbit, entry, malfunctions, aborts, and primary payload opera-tions. Little if any listing, recognition, or accounting for secondaries,DSOs, OTOs, Earth observation, flying proficiency, Shuttle Training Aircrafttraining, or briefings and training at other locations, is identified in theCatalog. There is no Catalog time scheduled for Astronaut Office activitiessuch as the Monday morning all astronaut meeting, attending previous missiondebriefings, or doing routine office administrative work. All of theseactivities require recognition in the Catalog and should be scheduled by theTraining Managers.

RECOMMENDATION: Expand the Catalog to include all training required toaccoiulish the mission. Have all training coordinated gy the TrainingManager.

3

2. Training Objectives

Because of the importance of on-orbit activities other than those designatedto support the primary payload, crew training should have increased emphasison all other mission objectives: OTOs, OSOs, and secondaries. Scheduledstand-alone training in the simulators, earlier crew access to traininghardware, software, procedures, and integrated simulations should be therule, not the exception.

RECOMMENDATION: The SS training team should include a person to ensure thecorrect level of re proficiency on BIOs. OSOs. M_ secondaries.

Training should be prioritized. Training must emphasize the things that thecrew will do. This would include on-orbit operations and secondary payloadtraining. They now get little training emphasis but they occupy much of theactual work time on orbit. Secondly, we need to train for those procedureswhich we might realistically do for the most likely failures that will becatastrophic If not acted on in a timely manner. This is necessary and canbe quantified somewhat through use of the extensive Failure Effects and ModeAnalysis/Critical Item List research that has been done to characterize thelikelihood of failures. Last priority should be those unlikely catastrophicfailures or more likely failures that are less severe.

RECOMNENDATION: Prioritize training with egnhasis on training for tasks thatwe will do. on probability of failure and level of severity. Do not limitthe mjority of training to the primary mission or improbable failurescenarios.

RECOMMENDATION: At least one session in the S1S Ls needed from crew ingressthrough lift-off. Cooumnication checks and other crew actions which need tobe trained for exist within this period. Likewise, at least one postlandingsession needs to be run all the wal throuah crew egress. Emphasis should beplaced on actual Orbiter configuration and on non-standard. flight-specificconfigurations including crew membgr instrumentation supporting OSOs.

The majority of crew training is accomplished stand-alone. Stand-alonetraining simulates a loss of communication with Mission Control. Whenintegrated training begins, the crew must immediately change their failureresponse process and normal operating methods to accommodate MissionControl's advice and expertise. Integrated training should begin muchearlier in the crew training flow to better develop the total team conceptand remove the loss of communication malfunction that is always present.Adequate integrated training should be scheduled to accommodate both severefailure scenarios and the anticipated normal operations that would ensurethat the crew, Mission Control, and the customers are thoroughly prepared forthe flight. Joint integrated simulations must include all missionobjectives.

RECOMMENDATION: Increase the numer of and Participation in integratedtraining.

4

0_- .. tOv

3. Inertial Upper Stage/Defense Support Program

The individual training sessions conducted by the IUS instructors were excel-lent but the overall approach to IUS training is not efficient. The initialclasses were spread over many weeks, requiring topics and information to berepeated. This resulted in a slow learning process with the overall pictureclear only after months of training.

RECOMMENDATION: Increase frequency of initial IUS training to improveoverall training efficiency.

Training on IUS display indications was often confusing because of changes towhat was expected to be seen on the Communications Interface Unit (CIU).Display indications for the IUS are not always consistent because of thecomplicated nature of the data flow, but the system is mature and the mostlikely indications are known, and these mast likely indications should beused.RECOMMENDATION: Emphasis should be Placed on the most likely CIU indications

during training.

4. Extended Duration Orbiter/Detailed Supplementary Objectives

While the medical DSOs were manifested at L-90 days, the formal training onmost did not start and had not been planned to start until L-60 days. It ispreferable to be fully trained on OSOs at L-60 days and use the remainingtime for refreshers and data takes. With eleven DSOs, a lot of training wasdelayed until the most demanding period of preparation close to launch. With0SOs a major part of the flight plan, orbit operations, and de-orbit prepar-ation could not be realistically trained for or visualized until the crew wastrained on the individual experiments.

RECOMMENDATION: DSO training should be conducted earlier and should beincluded and managed within the "standard" training template.

5. Detailed Test Objective

Training for entry Programmed Test Inputs (PTIs) was inadequate. The cuecard was not correct nor was it suited for use as a cue card during dynamicflight. Change requests (482s) were submitted to correct the card too lateto be incorporated other than by pen and ink. The crew should be includedduring the development of mission-specific cue cards, especially if usedduring dynamic flight. The sequence/timing of the auto PTIs varied dependingon the landing site. A training team cannot be expected to train a crew whengiven late and/or incorrect procedures. During SMS training, Orbitermalfunctions often precluded enabling PTIs, especially during integratedsimulations.

RECOMMENQATION: The PTI sponsors must ensure the crew is trained properly.The crew and control team should be exposed to entry PTIs for the primary andsecondary landing sites.

5

6. Military Man-In-Space/MS8-l

No formal training plan existed. However, the M88-1 team effectivelyconducted the necessary training. They were also very responsive to crewrequests for information and hardware. A simple scene simulation would havebeen helpful to enhance training. Scenes looking out a +XVV window and a ZLVoverhead window oriented as they would be in the Orbiter would be veryhelpful. Two types of scenes would be desired: one that would track a givenground target from front to rear windows and one that would show rate-of-scene-passage across the windows. This would enable a potential user tobecome familiar with how fast a scene passes and what to do to photographthat scene. In addition, our flight readiness would also have been enhancedif we had had the opportunity to fly the M88-1 equipment on board an aircraftspecifically to practice communication and observation operations overdesignated ground sites. Lastly, the level of detail participating crewmembers desired for Tethered Electronics Module (TEM) training varied. TheM88-1 payload support should be prepared to accommodate this variability,possibly by having a set of briefing materials available and using acombination of these to meet crew member dependent objectives.

RECOMMENDATION: Since the traininu for M88-1 was. for the most part.effective, A formal training plan is not necessary. Document the actual timethe crew spent in preparing for the M88-1 so that the total crew trainingwork load can be managed.

RECOMMENDATION: Develop a simple scene simulation of groun taret passageusing actual on-orbit, out-the-wirjo camcorder sgenes; .fl_ the M88-1equipment on board an aircraft at least once Rrior to flight to conductpractice observation runs.

7. Terra Scout

All Terra Scout training was provided by the U. S. Army Intelligence Center.This included both training in hardware specific operations, as well asimagery analysis training. Hardware training was conducted at the AeroMedical Research Laboratory located at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. Thistraining was provided to both the primary and back-up PS on a routine basis.Addi-tionally, five training sessions were provided to the CDR and PLT foreauip-ment familiarization purposes. The hardware training was sufficient toeffectively operate the Terra Scout hardware on-orbit.

8. Air Force Maul Optical Station

The crew was first exposed to the procedures when the Orbit Operations FlightSupplement was published. Several change requests (482s) were written tocorrect the Reaction Control System jet test procedures. However, due to thelate initiation of the 482s close to flight, the crew never trained to thefinal flight procedure. Crews should be involved in procedure developmentearly enough so that they can train to them. Not having crews train for aprocedure until the procedures are published in the Flight Data File (FDF)results in too little training, too late.

RECOMMENDATION: Train early and often on those procedures you will normallyperform. Involve the crew in procedure development of secondaries.

6

J.S. Gov

9. In-Flight Maintenance

Training was excellent with all sessions using hands-on experience to meetthe training objectives. The training benefit of seeing the actual flighthardware, tools, and access during the Crew Equipment Interface Test (CEIT)is invaluable.

RECOMMENDATION: Retain the IFM training as part of CEIT.

Du.-ing on-orbit simulations, IFM activities are usually not performed due tohardware limitations.

RECOMMENDATION: Construct an IFM training oanel in the middeck on the fixedbase simulator to allow real-time IF14 training tasks to be performed.

10. Wireless Comunication System

The Wireless Communication System (WCCS) system works well in the realvehicle but not in the SMS. The loud squeals in the SMS, limited batterylife, and unreliable operation limit the WCCS use and give the system anundeserved bad reputation. There are, however, two problems that existwithin the system that should be corrected. Two crew members share one wallunit. When one crew member transmits, the microphones of both crew membersare keyed, even if they are in the Push To Talk (PTT) configuration. Thisresults in unwanted transmissions that could be avoided only by announcing onthe intercom one's intentions of transmit-ting to the ground. Then it stilllimits the other crew to no talking during the transmission or it would bepicked up by the second microphone causing a garbled transmission. Thesecond problem was the shortage of batteries. Two batteries failed and someof the others did not have as long a lifetime as expected, so by flight daysix there were no fresh batteries remaining.

RECOMMENDATION: Modif the WCCS Lo that when in the PTT mode, microphonesassociated with a le unit are keyed only when the PUT switch is pushed forthe leg unit.

RECOMMENDATION: Manifest enough batteries to last for the expected missionduration. Include mjjn for battery failures and shortened battery lifebased on reported operational use during flights.

B. Flight Data File

All of the support personnel in DH433 did an outstanding job supporting theSTS-44 flow.

RECOMMENDATION: Post insertion and on-orbit operations would be enhanced ifA generic Reference Data stowage list was provided for training early in thetraining flow.

C. Sleep Shift

The crew shifted their normal wake-up from approximately 6:30 a.m. to2:00 p.m. to accommodate a 6:30 p.m. lift-off. The shift was begun at L-7days and continued until L-2 days waking approximately I hour 20 minutes

7

later each day, and sleeping eight hours the night before. From L-2 days

until actual lift-off, including the four-day launch delay, the crew was

stabilized at the shifted awake time.- Subjectively, all crew members feltrested and "sleep-shifted" on launch morning. The melatonin assay verifiedthat our physiological rhythms had in fact shifted.

RECOMMENDATION: A natural slee-shift should be considered as an option.

III. LAUNCH COUNTDOWN AND ASCENT

The Terminal Count Demonstration Test (TCDT) conducted several weeks beforethe scheduled launch prepared the crew for actual launch operations,requirements, and responsibilities. It was noted by all STS-44 crew membersthat the strapped down body position in the Orbiter was different from theaccustomed body positions while training in the SMS or the CCT trainer.Specifically, the crew members' final body positions in the Orbiter weredifferent from their positions during training. The crew observed that whenstrapped down in the Orbiter they were significantly higher up the seat back,perhaps 2-3 inches, and that the seat-back position was more heads down,perhaps 15 degrees, than simulated during training. Reach and visibility,control stick/rudder position, visibility of recessed gauges and talkbacks,and switch access were all different. During TCDT and the launcli countdown,the crew had to relearn the cockpit. Because of the different seatingposition, the crew's capability to respond to real Orbiter malfunctions wouldbe reduced.

RECOMMENDATION: Change the simulated launch attitudes of the SMS and the CCTtrainers to better replicate the Orbiter.

RECOMENDATION: Until the SMS and CCT trainers' seat positions arecorrected, all CDRs. PLTS. and 14S2s should determine their correct seatedpositions while suited in an Orbiter on the launch Dad, and then adjust their

seats and body positions appropriately in the trainers during training

sessions.

The LESs are extremely uncomfortable and severely restrict the crew members'

movements, field of view, and capabilities. The tight neck dams on the LES

are unacceptable. Some crew members spend about an hour on the pad in the

white room area waiting to ingress the Orbiter. The LES zipper design,however, makes it nearly impossible to urinate except into a diaper. The LESis hot and humid, bulky and heavy, and is unacceptable for space flight. The

risk versus comfort/capability trade off during ascent, however, continues to

make the wearing of the LES mandatory.

RECOMENDATION: Continue modlfication/replacement efforts to create an LES

acceptable for launch countdown and ascent.

Prelaunch, all of the windows except the payload bay windows were dirty fromrain-spotting and streaking. Dirty windows restrict visibility, increaseglare, and degrade photographic documentation.

RECOMMENDATION: Clean exterior window surfaces prelaunch and keep thewindows covered until the pad support technicians depart.

8

U.S. GOV I

Orbiter loads and oscillations during ascent appeared normal. During secondstage, a low frequency oscillation developed and remained until Main EngineCutoff. Approximately three minutes after lift-off, all flight deck crewmembers saw bright flashing lights through the forward windows. MS2, using awrist mirror, verified that the flashing was the same frequency as that ofthe plumes from the Space Shuttle Main Engines.

There was an extremely loud metallic banging sound and vibration at EternalTank (ET) separation. This was unexpected and not simulated during SMStraining.

RECOMMENDATION: The SMS visual and aural cues should simulate as accuratelyas Dossible actual mission sounds and sights.

Most of the crew members of STS-44 conmnented on the discomfort, severelylimited mobility, and reduced logistics capabilities during the high-gsegment of the ascent. All commented that the training that the crew hadreceived gave them a false and exaggerated indication of their capabilitiesto respond to Orbiter malfunctions during this phase of the flight. Theyunanimously agreed that only the most critical crew or Orbiter-savingactivities could and should be done during this ascent phase. The crewmembers also agreed that training should be changed to reflect theserestrictions and the community should be aware of the crew's concerns.

RECOMMENDATION: Re-evaluate training objectives and modify. if required, toreflect actual crew capabilities during ascent, especially during the hig gphase.

Centrifuge training at Brooks Air Force Base was worthwhile, especially forcrew members flying for the first time, although there are some commentsworth noting. The g profile for the training matches the actual flight-zloading but the feel of the real vehicle is somewhat different. In theOrbiter the acceleration feels higher and it is more difficult to move andreach around. The difference could be due to the vibration of the Orbiterwhich is absent in the centrifuge or could be because of the apparentdifference in the direction of the acceleration vector. The vector isperpendicular to the chest in the centrifuge, but seems to be pointed 10-20degrees more toward the head in the Orbiter. Another possibility is thelength of time spent on one's back strapped to the seat before lift-off. Thecrew thinks this causes fluid shift and fatigue. The centrifuge training isthe best we have to simulate ascent loads and also has apparent worth byassuring a good LES and harness fit.

RECOMMENDATION: Centrifuge training should be continued for non-flownastronauts and should be added as a recoamended activity fo_ Previously flownastronauts for the simulation of the ascent g loading and to assure a goodLES and harness fit.

The STS-44 crew carried temperature sensing strips with them to monitor areaenvironment temperatures during ascent and entry. During ascent the areaaround the CDR and the PLT was approximately 92 degrees Fahrenheit (F);around MS1 and MS2 approximately 85 degrees F; and around MS3 and the PSapproximately 75 degrees F.

9

kJ.Q. WOW t

IV. ON ORBIT

Orbit activities went smoothly only because of the excellent training and the

flexibility of the SMS training team, the training manager, each customer

representative, and the major support of the Training Division. Most of theon-orbit activities supporting secondaries and DSOs were not included in theCrew Training Catalog. The STS-44 crew, Mission Control, and customerproficiency was achieved only by scheduling additional sessions including aJoint Integrated Simulation specifically for secondaries.

RECOMMENDATION: It is imperative that to quarantee mission success, the team

must thoroughly prepare and train for the real mission.

The payload bay and the crew module were extremely clean and free of debris.

A. Significant On-Orbit Anomalies

The STS-44 crew responded to three significant systems anomalies and executedone avoidance maneuver. Two of the Orbiter problems were corrected, thethird resulted in the declaration of an Minimum Duration Flight (MDF). The

avoidance maneuver was accomplished with no impact. The significantanomalies and the avoidance maneuver are listed below.

1. On MET Flight Day (FD) 3, after the cabin temperaturecontroller reconfiguration from the primary to the secondary controller, and

before the humidity separators had been switched from B to A, we observed

that the equivalent of several cups of water had accumulated around the

humidity separator screen and that the separator was flowing free water into

the Lower Equipment Bay (LEB) below the middeck. When humidity separator 8

was turned off, the flow stopped. The crew accomplished several IFM activi-

ties including a free water clean-up and the covering of the separator B

screen with a bag and towels to prevent another free water spill. Humidity

separator A was activated with no problems and the mission continued. The

humidity separator problem, as of this writing, is unknown but it has been

noted that when the cabin temperature actuator link was switched from the

primary to the secondary controller, the primary was controlling to full hot

while the non-activated secondary controller was positioned to full cold.

2. A supply water dump valve leak was identified on FD3. Indica-

tions of a leaking dump valve were seen after the second and fourth supplywater dumps. An IFM to purge supply water from the dump line was performed

twice. The first attempt indicated blockage, the second attempt produced air

flow. The work-around was to continue the mission, dumping by means of theFlash Evaporator System.

3. On F05, twelve hours after IMU 2 was powered up, the Z axis

accelerometer channel and redundant gyro showed excessive outputs. The IMU

was taken to standby, then to operate, and then power-cycled, but the failure

was still present. An MOF was declared with an intended de-orbit to EdwardsAi- Force Base on FD6.

10

U.S. Gov

4. On F03 the crew executed a retrograde burn to increase the

separation distance from a COSMOS rocket body casing. This was no impact on

the mission.

B. Post Insertion

The timeline was followed with no problem. MS3 and the PS ,.-e responsiblefor configuring the middeck for orbit operations and also for doffing andstowing the crew's LESs and boots. MS3 and the PS doffed and stowed theirsuits inmmediately after MECO. MS2 doffed his suit immediately after the OMS2 burn. When he returned to the flight deck, MS1 doffed his LES. The CDRand the PLT remained in their LESs until a "go" for Orbit Operations wasgiven. During this transition time, each flight deck operation had verifica-tion by two crew members.

New stowage areas were used on this flight to save volume in the airlock andon the middeck. One LES was stored, without the mesh bag, forward of thewindow shade rack, to the left of the lockers. If done carefully, you could

get two suits stored head-to-feet in the same volume. All white headrestcushions, orange parachute support cushions, and some of the seat cushionswere stored behind the window shade cover rack. There was just enough roomto slide these items in and enough friction to hold them there. There wasadditional storage above the galley on the overhead above where the trays arestored.

RECOMMENDATION: Unstow a camcorder and bracket early in the post insertiontime line to document middeck post insertion activities for future flightcrews to review during training.

C. Defense Support Program

After Payload Bay Door opening, IUS ground personnel investigated an apparent

failure of the IUS Converter Regulator Unit (CRU) whose voltage droppedunexpectedly. This anomaly was explained when it was determined that the DSP

satellite solar panels -r::eived enough sunlight reflected from the Earth to

completely power the spacecraft, making the CRU output voltage drop to theregulation set point. The only other hardware anomaly was the IUS radiofrequency amplifier output power which dropped unexpectedly from 27 to 22watts. The power returned to 27 watts, remained nominal, and had no impacton the mission.

Payload panel activation and checkout started late due to the aft stationmission clock being in the Greenwhich Mean Time (GMT) configuration instead

of the desired Mission Elapse Time (MET). There was a 16-minute differencebetween GMT and MET. After the pre-deploy check times were read to theground controllers, the cause of the time difference became clear and wasresolved by switching to MET. All operations were nominal with no missionimpact resulting from the time difference.

RECOM4ENDATION: The aft station mission clock switch should be set in the

MET configuration durin relaunch switch reconfiguration.

All deploy operations were nominal but, as was the case during training, the

last 20 minutes before deploy were harried. With the many activities during

11

this period and their criticality to mission success, any problems encoun-tered could result in a late deploy or errors. This is a time formethodical, careful actions, not a time to hurry.

RECOMMENDATIDN: If the IUS battery margins allow, the deploy countdownshould be lengthened. with the IUS transfer to internal power occurrinq at 30minutes before deploy.

0. Detailed Supplementary Objectives

Even though all objectives were met and all procedures and operations wentsmoothly, earlier crew exposure to hardware and procedures would signifi-cantly enhance the collection of data. Data is being analyzed and sunmnaryresults will be available from the principal investigators. Only exceptionsor significant comments are noted by DSO below.

1. OSO 316 Bloreactor

The bioreactor would be greatly enhanced if downlink capability was routinelyprovided and the flexibility for human interaction was included. This wouldallow for real-time observation of results by both the crew and theinvestigators and the real-time modification of chamber specifications suchas control of rotations and flows.

2. DSO 472 Intraocular Pressure

As designed and as intended, the tone indication of a valid reading is animportant aid to the operation of the tonometer. The tone-could not alwaysbe heard in flight because of the crew module background noise making theprocedure more difficult and forcing a change in technique.

RECOMMENDATION: The tone on the pen should be made louder to be morediscernible over the normal Orbiter background noise.

3. OSO 478 Lower Body Negative Pressure (1BNP)

Several modifications to the LBNP preflight crewman-specific fit adjustmentshad to be made during the mission. To avoid this for future flights, moreattention to detail should be given to this on the ground.

The LBNP can be conveniently stowed as temporary stowage by removing only thecontroller and placing it within the LBNP bag. No other connections need bebroken.

Same useful work such as housekeeping, maintenance, or Earth observationphotography can be performed during an LBNP soak even in the device's presentconfiguration. During an LBNP soak, MS1 evaluated a crew member's ability to

perform normal operations while confined in the LBNP device. All normalactivities that were attempted were performed successfully. The tasks donewere stowing and de-stowing items in locker5, filling drink containers,preparing food, replacing bolts in the LiOH box as part of an IFM, recoroivnCdata in an FDF book, Earth observation photography, and movement throughoutthe crew compartment. All areas of the crew compartment could be reached,but movement through the interdeck access was slow because of the small

12

,J.S. Gov I

clearance between the deck and the LBNP controller. The cables and vacuum

line did not tend to pull on the bag or cause any problems, but one hac to De

aware of their presence to avoid becoming entangled. The length and bulk of

the device take up a lot of space, which could be a problem when working

around other crew members. The LBNP seat and waist seal were comfor:able fcr

the entire five-hour soak and could have been worn much longer. MS1 felt

that any normal task could be accomplished while in the LBNP device with the

only minor detriment being the inability to use one's legs for restraintwhile working.

RECOMMENDATION: Reduce the size of the LBNP device and the profile of thecontroller to allow easier movement while wearing the device during soakoperations.

RECOMMENDATION: Evaluate LBNP "pants" with legs to further reduce theoperational impact of soak operations.

The LBNP soak was done the day before landing because of the shortenedmission. The preliminary postfllght data show great promise for the use ofthe LBNP as an effective aid to orthor~atic tolerance on re-entry. Subjec-tively, MS1 felt very well on entry with no orthostatic intolerance.

RECOMMENDATION: Highl recoiend continuing research with the LBNP.including operational use: that is. workinq in the device and using it theday before entry to obtain operationally relevant data.

4. OSO 608 Metabolism/Exercise Testing

Exercise is a time-consuming but valuable task. The current treamill is not

acceptable for flignts where a lot of exercise is required (long flights,Ca" e crews, extensive exercise OSOs). The treadmill was noisy and took jp alot of space in the middle of the middeck. It jammed and could not berepaired. Exercises were developed that allowed us to continue the DSO.

RECOM'tNDATION: Replace the treadmill with an alternate mea-,, .f exercise.

E. Development Test Objectives

050 649 Shuttle EDO Rehydratable Food Package Evaluation. The EDO foodpackages were an acceptable substitute for the hard plastic food containers.While eating, the food access using the EDO packages is a little lessconvenient, but the trade-off between convenience and trash management--especially for long missions and large crews-- is worth it.

RECOMMENDATION: Manifest the EDO rehydratable food packages.

F. Terra Scout

The ourposes of the Terra Scout experiment and the Army PS were to iemcr-

strate the:

1. Utility of real-time observations to the Department of Defense(DO0).

13

2. Flexibility of the man-in-the-loop (expert system).

3. Usefulness of live-color imagery.

4. Utility of the Orbiter as a viable research and developmentplatform for the design of future remote sensing systems.

The on-board equipment included the Spaceborne Direct-View Optical System(SpaDVOS), voice recorders, 14X70 mm binoculars, and a telescope.

With the coincidence of the DOD's informational requirements and the orbitalinclination of a mission, real-time observations could be conducted from "heOrbiter. However, improvements need to be made in current optical systemsemployed by crew members. The addition of other remote sensing systems(i.e., infrared, radar, spectral, etc.) to collect data would greatly enhancethe capability from the Orbiter in this area.

The experiment demonstrated the flexibility of the man-in-the-loop on anumber of occasions, specifically during SpaDVOS hardware failures. It addeda significant value level of control over experimental hardware, techniques,and data-gathering requirements. SpaDVOS suffered software and hardwareproblems during the mission. The cause of the d~mage is unknown as of thiswriting. As an alternate resource for Terra Scout, the binoculars wereoutstanding, providing (subjectively) 20 to 30-foot resolution while trackinga site. The telescope was unusable because of its small field of view.

RECOMMENDATION: No secondary experiment should be manifested with SpaDVOS asq primary sensor until it demonstrates greatly improved performance andresolution.

RECOMMENDATION: The binoculars flown as part of the Terra Scout equipmentshould be procured and manifested as standard Orbiter .•ight crew equipment.

The effect of adverse weather and atmospheric conditions during the missionhampered the collection of data to support all Terra Scout objectives. Muchhas been written on the subject of color definition from Earth orbit and the

data obtained from the Terra Scout experiment serves to not only to supportprevious findings but to expand the discussion of the usefulness of "live-

color" scene data to military operational requirements. The observations onboard more than justify the continuance of live-color scene transmission from

orbiting reconnaissance and surveillance platforms.

The Orbiter continues to prove invaluable in satisfying the research anddevelopment activities of the DOD. In the case of Terra Scout, specificallyin the area of remote sensing technology development, the Orbiter providedthe following:

1. A controllable/returnable payload.

2. A comparison of "real environment" versus laboratory.

3. Significant cost-reduction during system R&D and check out.

14

U.S. Gov

4. Utility of the human observer if enhancements in optical andthe addition of remote sensing systems are made.

Terra Scout was an important step in the DOD's Military Main in Space (MMIS)program, targeted at the utilization of space assets to further technologies,techniques, and capabil-ities supporting both military and civilrequirements.

The Orbiter provided an excellent platform to conduct future remote sensingsystem research as well as the continuing development of current techno-logies.

Terra Scout II should be conceptually planned to make a quantum leap intechnology, depth of experimental design, objectives, purpose, and data-gathering capability (spectral versus optical). Maintain the man-in-the-loop. Fly the next experiment in the payload bay, eliminating window andfield of view impairments. Manifest the follow-on flight on a high inclina-tion mission with 24-hour operations.

RECOMMENDATION: Pursue the development of Terra Scout II.

G. Military Man in Space/M88-1

M88-1's purpose was to determine the ground resolution obtainable by thehuman observer from low Earth orbit using out-the-window optics. The secondpart of the evaluation was to evaluate the feasibility of making tacticallysignificant observations and reporting these observations to tacticalcommanders in near real-time.

Prior knowledge of the target site allowed a more thorough interpretation ofthe Charge Couple Device (CCD) imagery.

The optical equipment included: Nikon F3 camera body, 300mm lens with 1.2and 2.0x extenders providing an effective focal length of 960mm, Kodak CCDcamera-back for digital imagery, Kodak TEM for digital data storage, and aSony mc~ci PVM 91-5 high resolution (850 lines) 13-inch black and whitemonitor for real-time imagery display.

RECOMMENDATION: The matte finish focusing prism installed on the Nikon F3limited useful through-the-lens observations. Replace the matte finishviewfinder on the camera with a clear non-obstructed viewfinder to allowbetter through the lens observations.

The communications equipment included: for the network mode, the Orbiter Airto Ground Loop I (A/G-l); and for the direct mode (UHF line-of-sight) anLST-5B radio transceiver, KY-57 cryptological unit, and an overhead windowmounted antenna (non-opaque).

For each observation site, a pre-pass briefing was received providing weatherover the target and what to observe. Initial target acquisition was doneusing the windows pointing into the velocity vector on the side which wouldprovide the bes- view to the target. Useful observations were made throughthe overhead window when the target was within approximately 15-20 degrees tonadir. A .potter, using velocity vector viewing windows would acquire thetarget, begin making observations using the Terra Scout-provided binoculars,

15

'j.S. Govy

and vector the CCD camera operator positioned at the overhead window onto thetarget. The CCD operator would then commence photographing the target whilein view near nadir. The spotter would aTso transition to the overhead windowto continue binocular-assisted observations. Post pass, the imagery would bereviewed by both observers as quickly as possible and then relayed to await-ing ground personnel using either network or direct communications or acombination of both. Initial acquisition of the target would have been moresimple if a geolocation capability was provided.

RECOMMENDATION: Add geolocation capability to instantaneously locate targetimage.

Imagery obtained showed a maximum resolution of 20 to 30 feet under the bestcontrast, lighting, and shadow conditions; however, the lower limit toidentify specific features in the images was 80 to 100 feet depending on itsparticular shape and position on the ground. In addition, National ImageryInterpretability Rating Scale (NIIRS) utility was rated at approximately anNIIRS 3 to 4 (scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best). The synergismbetween the spotter/observer and the photographer/observer allowed for asignificantly increased observation capability upon review of the obtainedimagery after the pass. The following recommendation could enhance anobserver's capability to identify and evaluate a target.

RECO*MENOATION: Increase the focal length of the lens to 1200-1500 m.

Increase the CCD pixel resolution as high as Possible.

RECOMMENDATION: Add color capability.

RECOMMENDATION: Add capability to transfer digital images from TEM storagedevice to an on-board laptop computer equipped with image processing softwareto allow for on-board iMe enhancement.

The direct communications aspect of the experiment was not tested due to anequipment failure. This failure, a continuous off-scale high receivedsignal, prevented reception of normal ground transmissions. Broadcastsignals worked nominally as our transmissions were received at several grounasites. The failure as of this writing is unexplained. Networkcommunications via A/G-1 worked well and extended the communication timesignificantly over what would have been the direct signal acquisition period.This allowed for a longer and more detailed review of obtained imagery and,therefore, better more accurate information relayed to the ground.

Militarily useful observations by the human observer in low Earth orbit arefeasible as a supplement to other sources which gather observational data.This is not to say that the Orbiter would be used primarily for this purpose,but if an Orbiter is in an appropriate orbit at the right time (then withmodest improvements to the low cost equipment used cn STS-44) these humanobservations from low Earth orbit could prove valuable for tactical use intimes of national crises.

The CCD camera only afforded a maximum ISO of 200 which limited the shutterspeed to approximately 1/250 seconds. With the near 1000mm lens a shutter ofspeed of 1/1000 seconds was needed to freeze an image considering only thehuman steadiness factor. Given the speed of advance of the Orbiter over the

16

'J.S. Gov t

ground, a shutter speed of at least 1/2000 seconds would be needed to obtain

a very sharp image. The faster shutter speeds would allow more reliable

imagery acquisition and therefore less time would be spent acquiring images.

This would allow more time to review and report on the imagery which in turn

would make the UHF direct communications window useful.

RECOWENDATION: The technology already exists to increase the ISO of the CCDcamera which would allow for the faster shutter speeds required. Thistechnology should be vigorously pursued.

Therefore to obtain useful images, a series of images (up to 40) were takenfor a given target. A large rubber bumper mounted on the front end of thelens allowed the operator to plant the lens against the window thus steadying

the camera (or the lens), and to track targets manually. When the disk in"the TEM was not very full, the CCD/TEM equipment allowed rapid fire picturetaking (2-3 images per second). This technique would produce several sharpimages per target.

With the limitations of the optical equipment which forced us to take severalimages per target, we rapidly filled up the available disk space. Thisslowed the CCD/TEM's ability to take additional images and thereforeprevented capture of sharp imagery. In addition, the time to find and review

the best imagery of the several images taken would have hampered the abilityto use direct communications to best advantage. Network communicationallowed the extra time to find and review the best images but did not allowtalking in the clear. Encryption of network communications would haveallowed more explicit reporting as would have been possible with d.lrectcommunication.

RECOMMENDATION: Improve CCD to TEM input/output capability to allow forrapid acquisition of ý at a minimum of 2-3 images per second under alldisk storage capacity conditions.

RECOMMENDATION: Improve TEN utility §1 allowing for storage of image byspecific numbers, and by allowing for shifting if images to lower numberedslots which become available after non-desireible images are deleted.

RECOMMENDATION: Develop a communication plan so that when it is required,the Orbiter uplink and downlink can be encrypted to allow pre-pass briefings,post-pass voice reportinq, and downlink of images to be accomplished vianetwork communications.

RECOMMENDATION: Add downlink capability so imagery can be relayed directlyto tactical commanders in the field.

H. Payload Bay Experiments

There was no on board crew monitoring devices for the payload bayexperiments. Data will be available from the principal investigators.

17

Interim Operational Contamination Monitor (IOM)

This secondary experiment was given little attention because the only crewinterface was a powerdown postlanding. Onorbit, during Orbiter night and

with the payload bay lights off, the crew noticed a bright light coming fromthe 10CM illuminating the payload bay, degrading night visual observationsfrom the aft windows. This light could also be seen by the ground sensorsduring the AMOS tests. The light may not have been necessary or could havebeen shaded.

RECOMMENDATION: Crews should investigate each secondary experiment for its

impact on other mission activities.

I. Middeck Experiments

All experiments worked well. Data is being analyzed and will be availablefrom the principal investigators. Significant comments are listed below.

1. Radiation Monitoring Experiment-Ill

The first memory module used during activation did not respond properly whenthe time was updated. This module was replaced and not needed due to theearly mission termination.

2. Shuttle Activation Monitor

The cassette tape recorder used for data storage was located on the middecknext to the escape pole. This made it susceptible to impact during normalmiddeck activities. The record buttons were unprotected and were bumped out

of record resulting in the loss of about 40 minutes of data. The practice ofstowing cassette tapes without the tape case resulted in the tape unwinding

in microgravity. On orbit, one cassette was unstowed and it was found thatnot only had it unspooled but it also had tangled and had become unusable.

RECOMMENDATION: Data acoulsition/stowage devices should remain in lockers toprevent loss of data due to inadvertent impacts. Power and venting should beprovided.

RECOMMENDATION: A method of holding tension on cassette IA prior to andafter use should be provided.

J. Earth Observations

The Earth in November 1991 when compared with the Earth seen in November 1989during the flight of STS-33, was far more extensively cloud-covered. Theatmosphere appeared more purple or lavender than blue when viewed obliquelywith the sun at your back. The short term atmospheric effects of Mount

Pinatubo and the oil fires in Kuwait appear to be clearing and the effects oflocal phenomena, such as burning and pollution, were again becoming predomi-nant.

Orbiter window #10, the port aft window looking into the payload bay, was

streaked with two heavy white lines shaped like a horizontal "V' eacn about

18

U.S. Gov I

ten inches in length. These marks appear in all the photographs taken fromthis window.

The atlas and slider map are very useful documents. They should continue tobe manifested an each mission. The Earth Observation Preflight TrainingManual is also an excellent source document and should also be manifested.

RECOMMENDATION: The STS-44 crew recoaends that we continue to manifest theatlas and slider• an and begin manifesting the Earth Observation PreflightTraining Manual.

K. Photography/Television

In addition to the standard Earth observation photographic documentation thecrew of STS-44 carried a dual Hasselblad camera mount so that comparisonphotographs could be taken and later evaluated. Side-by-side comparisonswere to be made of film types and polarization. When the mission wasshortened because of the IMU 2 failure, only the film comparison was com-pleted. The ground evaluation of the film comparison, as of this writing,has not been completed. The following are comments and recommendationsrelative to the comparison activities.

Dual camera polarization studies require extensive set up and waiting timefor optimum sunglint.

RECOMMENDATION: If extensive dual-camera mount operations are required, at

least a third Eart. observation camera should be flown.

Most of the camera lenses, lens covers, filters, and other pieces ofphotographic equipment were not equipped with velcro. In-flight time Wasused to cut and place velcro on each piece of photo equipment.

RECOMMENDATION: Every piece of camera equiDment should be launched with atleast one g of hook velcro.

The crew was presented with a complex matrix of photographic experiments ten

days prior to launch. We were defining, developing, and learning theseprocedures until the crew left for KSC three days before launch. This

evaluation was not documented as part of DSO-903, Documentary Still Photo-

graphy.

REC014MENDATION: Extensive or significant photo requirements should be

planned and trained for at least a month or two before launch. They should

be included in the formal flight olan to optimize the availability of cwindows, Orbiter attitudes. Earth views, and came hardware.

The in-flight configuration of the polarization filters was different thanexpected.

RECOM4ENDATION: The training Ln Polarization techniques should involve notonly lectures but also training with the hardware as It will be configuredfor flight. Training should also involve actual practice on reflectedsunlight such as viewed from aircraft.

19

The fulfillment of OSO-903 for Earth observations went smoothly withexcellent photographic results. The crew used the Minolta Spotmeter. The f-stops provided by the Payload General Support Computer (PGSC) are forecastedapproximations. Rules of thumb needed to be applied to each approximationbefore a successful photograph could be attempted. The real-time biasing ofthese approximations based on the photographic objectives was a very involvedprocess to be used on a quickly passing objective.

RECOMMENDATION: Traininq for the excosure of Earth observation ahotoIraphsshould include not only PGSC derived settings but also use of meteringdevices such as the Minolta Syotmeter.

The color Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) monitors flew for the first time,and were a complete success. The monitors were a significant improvementover the old black and white monitors. The preflight detents for contrastbrightness, etc., were optimal, and could not be improved In flight. Aninformal evaluation showed that the monitors' color quality were excellent.Camcorder views of objects on the flight deck were compared with the actualobjects. The colors on the monitors were the same as the actual object'scolor.

RECOMMENDATION: Continue to fly the color CCTV monitors.

RECOWENDATION: When new equipment fli.s for the first time. an officialdocumented test of the equipment should be conducted. The test should bescheduled in the flight plan.

The 16mm Ariflex camera mode switch was intermittent throughout this flightand previous flights. The Ariflex camera has not been reliable.

RECOMMENDATION: The Ariflex should be modified, upgraded, or replaced.

The Orbiter Video Tape Recorder (VTR) jammed on FD2. The jam was cleared butthe tape insertion mechanism would not seat properly without pushing on thetop of the mechanism each time a tape was loaded. The VTR is old and naslimited capabilities. It should be replaced.

RECOMMENDATION: Replace the VTR with a recorder with current capabilities.

L. Orbiter Systems, Flight Crew Equipment, and other MiscellaneousObservations

The compaction of trash will be a requirement on EDO missions. The trashcompactor was fully capable of compressing an average of six man-days oftrash into a volume less than 0.75 cubic feet. It was simple to operate, hadno noticeable odor, and only allowed a small amount of liquid to escape onetime.

4e encountered a number of minor difficulties with the compactor and theseShould be corrected before it flies again.

1. The handles released from the compactor too easily, probablybecause of the minimum force required to compress the ballplungers.

20

'J.::. (UQV 1

2. The "finger lid" fingers tore.

3. The door latch began sticking after three days. This problemwas easily remedied by applying ChapsticK to the latchmechanism.

4. A screw in the right handle fell out, perhaps due to a defec-tive locking method.

5. The metal outer ring and bag assembly repeatedly floated outof place. The entire assembly must fit more snugly in thecompactor cylinder.

6. The handles began to go out of sync after FD4. When youplaced both left and right retraction/compaction switches inthe compaction mode and began moving the handles inward andoutward in unison, the left handle would eventually stick inthe inward position. The operator would then be required toplace the compactor in the retraction mode, move the lefthandle outward and then place the machine back into thecompaction mode to resume normal operations.

7. The velcro straps intended to secure the trash in itscompacted state, did not work very well. Gray tape was usedto ensure the completely compacted bag did not expand.

RECOMMENDATION: The compaction of trash is a necessity on EDO missior7.After the required mechanical fixes_, the coactor should if feasible. beflown on e mission.

The Orbiter electrical Group B powerdown was executed after the DSP deplny.This was an effective way to save and manage cryogenic fluids. The Group Bpowerdown allows only three middeck lights to be on.

RECOMMENDATION: Group § Powardown should allow more lighting on the middeck.

The Orbiter temperature and humidity control was outstanding. STS-44 was thefirst mission to position the H20 loop 2 bypass mode in "automatic." Thecrew also flew in the automatic temperature control mode with the temperaturecontroller rotated to the 2:30 position.

For some missions, stowage of food by crew member versus by meal greatlyfacilitates food preparation.

RECOMMENDATION: Stowlnq food D crew member should be an alternative ifrequested.

When either annunciator bus was selected on panel A6U, a buzz was heard. Thebuzz was loud enough to be distracting, and because of that the bus was leftoff except when required.

RECOW4ENDATION: Eliminate the buzz associated with the panel A6U annunciatorbus select switch.

21

During scheduled maintenance the vacuum cleaner attachment for cleaning DataDisplay Unit filters broke. A more flexible plastic tube is needed to vacuumhard-to-access filters.

The vacuum cleaner was powered once from an AC outlet using a Y-cable from asecondary experiment. The cable was two-phase only, and although the vacuumcleaner worked there was potential for damaging equipment.

RECOMMENDATION: Clearly label all non-standard cables to avoid improver use.Include in traini a caution against use of "extension" cables that are notthree-phase when th are manifested.

A humidity separator discharged several cups of water into the LEB requiringaccess to the area to clean up the water and bag the end of the humidityseparator so that it could be used if needed. An attempt to access thehumidity separator by removing the LIOH box was not successful. The IFMchecklist call out for fasteners was not correct, so the box could not beremoved. Postflight information revealed that each Orbiter is different.Access to the LEB was successfully made through Volume H, under the interoeckaccess ladder. This access path was on the port side and had one narrowpoint with only 8-9 inches of clearance between hardware. Water was on allthe structure, wires, and lines from the humidity separator outlet to theoutboard hull. All water was wiped up with towels, then the IFM to bag theend of the humidity separator outlet was completed.

RECOMMENDATION: Correct the IFM checklist to include differences in OrbiterLiOH box fasteners.

The voice reproduction characteristic of the flight deck and middeck speakerswithin the speaker/microphone system was unacceptable. In all instances, thecrew member had tO position himself directly in front of the speaker tounderstand what was being broadcast.

RECOMMENDATION: Replace the speaker with a voice reproduction syst thatcan be easily heard and understood.

The method used for crew option TV downlinks seemed to work nicely and waswell received by Public Affairs. Each day, available crewmen videotapedfootage on a topic of interest designated by the CDR. A crew member acted asthe director/producer to plan, organize, and ensure timely completion of thevideo. Scenes were discussed and then rehearsed if needed before filming.The video was reviewed as the filming was done and retakes were made asrequired. The crew member who would later broadcast the downlink would thenreview the finished video and rehearse his commentary. At the appointed timeof the live downlink the prerecorded video was sent down and simultaneouslyplayed on the CCTV monitor while the crew member added live audio commentary.

M. On Orbit Assessment and Planning with MCC

Communication between the Atlantis crew and Mission Control were generallygood. The crew, however, could not hear nor could they participate indiscussions between the flight controllers, discussions that would ultimatelyaffect the Flight Plan. The crew also did not, except by self-assessment,

22

us. Gov t

receive a direct indication of how it hao performed nor what, if any, changesmight be necessary to improve efficiency. A daily tag up between the FlightDirector and the CDR, similar to the private medical conference, could beincluded as a daily scheduled activity to ensure adequate crew assessment andanticipated future planning coordination.

RECOMMENDATION: Schedule a daily private or open discussion between theFlight Director and the CDR for crew performance assessment and futureplanning coordination.

V. DE-ORBIT PREPARATION AND ENTRY

The first de-orbit opportunity was "no-go" because of high winds at EdwardsAir Force Base. The next opportunity, the second of three daylightopportunities at Edwards, had acceptable winds and the crew was given a "go"for de-orbit and for a landing on lakebed Runway 05.

There were five crew members who wore instrumentation for medical OSOs duringentry. Each of these crew members required extra time during LES donning toprepare and put on the instrumentation. This resulted in de-orbitpreparation activities still being worked after entry interface. These DSOsshould be done because of their scientific importance to the manned spaceprogram and time should be allocated to ensure they are done properly.

RECOMMENDATION: Allow extra time in the de-orbit prev timeline for medical050 instrumentation checkout and donning.

The entry profile and Orbiter characteristics were typical with anticipatedbuffets between Mach 24 and 22. The Mach I buffet was impressive and, asalways, generated crew comments.

Cockpit temperatures increased and, similar to ascent, higher temperatureswere measured on the flight deck then on the middeck. Temperatures in thearea around the CDR and the PLT were aLpr.:ximately 96 degrees F decreasing by10 degrees F in the MS1 and MS2 seating areas. The middeck, similar toascent, experienced temperatures of approximately 75 degrees F.

The comments made concerning the currently configured LES during launchcountdown and ascent are all applicable during entry. The risk during entry,however, is considered significantly less and the probability of bailout isminimal. An appropriate helmet that would provide breathing air or oxygen tothe crew member in the unlikely case of loss of Orbiter pressurization shouldbe worn. Five of the six members of the STS-44 crew recommend that the LESnot be donned for entry because it would severely limit and restrict thecrew's capability to quickly egress from the Orbiter following a moreprobable landing mishap.

RECOMMENDATION: Do not wear the current LES during entry and landing.

RECOMMENDATION:" Provide a helmet for each crew member that, in case of lossof Orbiter pressurization, would provide air or oxygen for survival.

23

The sixth member of the crew disagrees. The following is his statement of

concern:

"The assessment that the risk of bailout is minimal on entry may be

valid; however, the LES offers protection not only for bailout but also for

loss of cabin pressure at high altitudes and for exposure protection. Everylaunch has new anomalies that were previously not within our experience. If

such a problem does occur on entry where the LES may mitigate the degree ofseverity of the failure on the crew, It would be unacceptable to not have theneeded protection. The total protection that the LES provides is worth

retaining; it is the current LES that is unacceptable. Before we make aprecedent-setting decision to not wear the LES for entry, we should make

every endeavor to either fix the current suit or fully explore alternativesthat would be acceptable to retain the protection afforded by the suit. Onlythen should we consider abandoning this protection."

DTO 520 Edwards Lakebed Runway Bearing Strength Assessment for OrbiterLandings. The declaration of an MOF and the requirement to land at a lakebedcomplex because of the IMU failure, gave us the opportunity to complete 0TO520. An uneventful landing was made and Atlantis was allowed to roll outwith no brake application until 15 knots groundspeed (KGS). Directionalrollout stability was excellent, though MS2 commented that the rollout was

rougher than he recalled from his last lakebed landing on Runway 23 in 1985.

VI. POSTLANDING

Standard full convoy operations began after wheel stop. The Crew Transport

Vehicle (CTV) was rolled to the Orbiter hatch and, after postlanding activi-

ties were completed, the crew exited directly into it. Three of the crew

members, the CDR, MS3, and the PS, exited the CTV immediately for an Orbiter"walk around." A second vehicle stood by for their transportation. The

remaining crew members immediately began OSO data-takes within the CTV. The

CTV and the second vehicle subsequently carried the crew back to the medical

facility for family greetings, postlanding medical examinations, and the

continuation of postlanding OSO activities.

The postlanding medical activities and all 0O0 evaluations werecompleted on time. OSO 472 Intraocular Pressure Measurement required crew

member participation to take measurements on a second crew member. We

recommend that a returning crew member should not be expected to be operators

of DSOs such as 472 in the immediate postflight period. Eye-hand coordina-

tion skills cannot be expected to be normal at this time.

RECOIMMENDATION: Do not use returninq crew members as operators for DSOs in

the immuediate postflight period.

24

U.S. Gov I

VII. SUftRY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

RECOMMENDATION: Accomplish as much training as possible before crewassignment. (P. 3)

RECOMMENDATION: Expand the Catalog to include all training required toaccomplish the mission. Have all training coordinated by the TrainingManager. (P. 3)

RECOMNENOATION: The SMS training team should include a person to ensure thecorrect level of crew proficiency on DTOs, DSOs, and secondaries. (P. 4)

RECOMMENDATION: Prioritize training with emphasis on training for tasks thatwe will do, on probability of failure and level of severity. Do not limitthe majority of training to the primary mission or improbable failurescenarios. (P. 4)

RECOMMENDATION: At least one session in the SMS is needed from crew ingressthrough lift-of.:. Communication checks and other crew actions which need tobe trained for exist within this period. Likewise, at least one postlandingsession needs to be run all the way through crew egress. Emphasis should beplaced on actual Orbiter configuration and on non-standard, flight-specificconfigurations including crew member instrumentation supporting OSOs. (P. 4)

RECOMMENDATION: Increase the number of and participation in integratedtraining. (P. 4)

RECOMMENDATION: Increase frequency of initial IUS training to improveoverall training efficiency. (P. 5)

RECOMMENDATION: Emphasis should be placed on the most lkely CIU indicationsduring training. (P. 5)

RECOMMENDATION: OSO training should be conducted earlier and should beincluded and managed within the "standard" training template. (P. 5)

RECDMMENDATION: The PTI sponsors must assure the crew is trained prooerly.The crew and control team should be exposed to entry PTIs for the primary andsecondary landing sites. (P. 5)

RECOMMENDATION: Since the training for M88-1 was, for the most part,effective, a formal training plan is not necessary. Document the actual timethe crew spent in preparing for the M88-1 so that the total crew trainingworkload can be managed. (P. 6)

RECOMMENDATION: Develop a simple scene simulation of ground target passageusing actual on-orbit, out-the-window camcorder scenes; fly the M88-Ieauipment on board an aircraft at least once prior to flight to conductpractice observation runs. (P. 6)

RECOMMENDATION: Train early and Gften on those procedures you will normallyperform. Involve the crew in procedure development of secondaries. (P. 6)

RECOMMENDATION: Retain the IFM training as part of CEIT. (P. 7)

25

RECOMMENDATION: Construct an IFM training panel in the micdeck on the fixedbase simulator to allow real-time IFM training tasks to be performed. (P. 7)

RECOMMENDATION: Modify the WCCS so that when in the PTT mode, microphonesassociated with a leg unit are keyed only when the PTT switch is pushed forthe leg unit. (P. 7)

RECOMMENDATION: Manifest enough batteries to last for the expected missionduration. Include margin for battery failures and shortened battery lifebased on reported operational use during flights. (P. 7)

RECO(MMENOATION: Post insertion and on-orbit operations would be enhanced ifa generic Reference Data stowage list was provided for training early in thetraining flow. (P. 7)

RECOMMENDATION: A natural sleep-shift should be considered as an option.(P. 8)

RECOM94ENDATiON: Change the simulated launch attitudes of the SMS and the CCTtrainers to better replicate the Orbiter. (P. 8)

RECOMMENDATION: Until the SMS and CCT trainers' seat positions arecorrected, all CORs, PLTs, and MS2s should determine their correct seatedpositions while suited in an Orbiter on the launch pad, and then adjust theirseats and body positions appropriately in the trainers during trainingsessions. (P. 8)

RECOMM4ENDATION: Continue modification/replacement efforts to create an LESacceptable for launch countdown and ascent. (P. 8)

RECOMMENDATION: Clean exterior window surfaces prelaui.ch and keep thewindows covered until the pad support technicians depart. (P. 9)

RECOMIMENDATION: The SMS visual and aural cues should simulate as accuratelyas possible actual mission sounds and sights. (P. 9)

RECOMENDATIb,:. Reevaluate training objectives and modify if required toreflect actual crew capabilities during ascent, especially during the high gphase. (P. 9)

RECOMMENDATION: Centrifuge training should be continued for non-flownastronauts and should be added as a recommended activity for previously flownastronauts for the simulation of the ascent g loading and to assure a goodLES and harness fit. (P. 9)

RECOMMENDATION: It is imperative that to guarantee mission success, the teammust thoroughly prepare and train for the real mission. (P. 10)

RECOMM4ENDATION: Unstow a camcorder and bracket early in the post insertiontime line to document middeck post insertion activities for future flightcrews to review durirng training. (P. 11)

26

,j S. Gov t

RECOWENDATION: The aft station mission clock switch should be set in theMET configuration during prelauncn switch reconfiguration. (P. 11)

RECOMMENDATION: If the IUS battery margins allow, the deploy Countdownshould be lengthened, with the IUS transfer to internal power occurring at 30minutes before deploy. (P. 12)

RECOMMENDATION: The tone on the pen should be made louder to be morediscernible over the normal Orbiter background noise. (P. 12)

RECOMMENDATION: Reduce the size of the LBNP device and the profile of thecontroller to allow easier movement while wearing the device during soakoperations. (P. 13)

RECOMMENDATION: Evaluate LBNP "pants" with legs to further reduce theoperational impact of soak operations. (P. 13)

RECOMMENDATION: Highly recommend continuing research with the LBNP,including operational use; that is, working in the device and using it theday before entry to obtain operationally relevant data. (P. 13)

RECOMMENDATION: Replace the treadnill with an alternate means of exercise.(P. 13)

RECOMMENDATION: Manifest the EDO rehydratable food packages. (P. 13)

RECOMMENDATION: No secondary experiment should be manifested with Spa0VOS asa primary sensor until it demonstrates greatly improved performance andresolution. (P. 14)

RECOMMENOATION: The binoculars flown as part of the Terra Scout equipmentShould be procured and manifestec as standard Orbiter flignt crew equipment.(P. 14)

RECOMMEW3DATION: Pursue the development of Terra Scout II. (P. 15)

RLA,.MENDATION: The matte finish focusing prism installed on the Nikon F3limited useful through-the-lens observations. Replace the matte finishviewfinder on the camera with a clear non-obstructed viewfinaer to allowbetter through the lens observations. (P. 15)

RECOMMENDATION: Add geolocation capability to instantaneously locate targetimage. (P. 16)

RECOMMENDATION: Increase the focal length of the lens to 1200-15G0 mm.

Increase the CCD pixel resolution as high as possible. (P. 16)

RECOMMENDATION: Add color capability. (P. 16)

RECOMMENDATION: Add capability to transfer digital images from TEM storagedevice to an on-board laptop computer equipped with image processing softwareto allow for on-board image enhancement. (P. 16)

27

RECOMENDATION: The technology already exists to increase the ISO of the CCDcamera which would allow for the faster shutter speeds required. Th'istecnnology should be vigorously pursued. (P. 17)

RECOWENDATION: Improve CCD to TEM input/output capability to allow forrapid acquisition of images at a minimum of 2-3 images per second under alldisk storage capacity conditions. (P. 17)

RECOWENDATION: Improve TEM utility by allowing for storage of images byspecific numoers, and by allowing for shifting of images to lower numberedslots which become available after non-desireable images are deleted. (P.17)

RECOMMENDATION: Develop a communication plan so that when it is required theOrbiter uplink and downlink can be encrypted to allow pre-pass briefings,post-pass voice reporting, and downlink of images to be accomplished vianetwork communications. (P. 17)

RECOMMENDATION: Add downlink capability so imagery can be relayed directlyto tactical commanders in the field. (P. 17)

RECO4ENDATION: Crews should investigate each secondary experiment for itsimpact on other mission activities. (P. 18)

RECOMENDATION: Data acquisition/stowage devices should remain in lockers toprevent loss of data due to inadvertent impacts. Power and venting should beprovided. (P. 18)

RECONENDATION: A method of holding tension on cassette tapes prior to andafter use should be provided. (P. 18)

RECOMMENDATION: The STS-44 crew recommends that we continue to manifest theatlas and slider map and begin manifesting the Earth Observation PrefligntTraining Manual. (P. 19)

RECO$9ENDATION: If extensive dual-camera mount operations are required, atleast a third Earth observation camera should be flown. (P. 19)

RECOMMENDATION: Every piece of camera equipment should be launched with atleast one patch of hook velcro. (P. 19)

RECOWENDATIGu: Extensive or significant photo requirements Should beplanned and trained for at least a month or two before launch. They shouldbe included in the formal flight plan to optimize the availability of crew,windows, Orbiter attitudes, Earth views, and camera hardware. (P. 19)

RECOWENDATION: The training in polarization techniques should involve notonly lectures but also training with the hardware as it will be configuredfor flight. Training should also involve actual practice on reflectecsunlight such as viewed from aircraft. (P. 19)

RECOIWENDATION: Training for the exposure of Earth observation photographsshould include not only PGSC derived settings but also use of meteringdevices such as the Minolta Spotmeter. (P. 20)

28

,J.S. Gaov t

RECOI4ENOATION: Continue to fly the color CCTV monitors. (P. 20)

RECOMMENDATION: When new equipment flies for the first time, an official

documented test of the equipment should be conducted. The test should bescheduled in the flight plan. (P. 20)

RECOMIENDATION: The Ariflex should be modified, upgraded, or replaced. (P.20)

RECOMMENDATION: Replace the VTR with a recorder with current capabilities.(P. 20)

RECOMMENDATION: The compaction of trash is a necessity on EDO missions.After the required mechanical fixes, the compactor should, if feasible, beflown on every mission. (P. 21)

RECOM4MENDATION: Group B powerdown should allow more lighting on the middeck.(P. 21)

RECOMMENDATION: Stowing food by crew member should be an alternative ifrequested. (P. 21)

RECOMMENDATION: Eliminate the buzz associated with the panel A6U annunciatorbus select switch. (P. 21)

RECOM4MENDATION: Clearly label all non-standard cables to avoid improper use.Include in training a caution against use of "extension" cables that are notthree-phase when they are manifested. (P. 22)

RECOI4MENDATION: Correct the IFM checklist to include differences in OrbiterLiOH box fasteners. (P. 22)

RECOM4ENDATION: Replace the speaker with a voice reproduction System thatcan be easily heard and understood. (P. 22)

"RECOM44ENDATION: Schedule a daily private or open discussion between the

Flight Director and the CDR for crew performance assessment and futureplanning coordination. (P. 23)

RECOM4ENDATION: Allow extra time in the de-orbit prep timeline for medicalOSO instrumentation checkout and donning. (P. 23)

RECOMMENDATION: Do not wear the current LES during entry and landing. (P.23)

RECOMMENDATION: Provide a helmet for each crew member that, in case of lossof Orbiter pressurization, would provide air or oxygen for survival. (P. 23)

RECOMMENDATION: Do not use returning crew members as operators For DS~s inthe immediate postflight period. (P. 24)

29

VIII. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

A/G Air to GroundAC Alternating CurrentAFB Air Force BaseAMOS Air Force Maui Optical StationCCD Charge Couple DeviceCCT Crew Compartment TrainerCCTV Closed Circuit TelevisionCDR CommanderCEIT Crew Equipment Interface TestCREAM Comic Radiation Effects and Activation MonitorCRU Converter Regulator UnitCTV Crew Transport Vehicleoo0 Department of Defense

DPS Data Processing SystemDSO Detailed Supplementary ObjectiveDSP Defense Support ProgramOTO Detailed Test ObjectiveEDO Extended Duration OrbiterEST Eastern Standard TimeET External TankF FahrenheitFD Flight DayFDF Flight Data Fileg GravityGMT Greenwich Mean TimeH20 WaterIFM In-Flight MaintenanceIMU Inertial Measurement Unit10CM Interim Operational Contamination MonitorISO International Standards OrganizationIUS Inertial Upper StageKEAS Knots Equivalent Air SpeedKGS Knots GroundspeedKSC Kennedy Space CenterLBNP Lower Body Negative PressureLEB Lower Equipment BayLES Launch and Entry SuitLiGHTSAT Light SatelliteLiOH Lithium HydroxideMOF Minimum Duration FlightMET Mission Elapsed Timemm MillimeterMMIS Military Main in SpaceMS Mission SpecialistNIIRS National Imagery Interpretability Rating Scale

NM Nautical MilesOMS Orbital Maneuvering SystemPGSC Payload General Support ComputerPLT PilotPS Payload SpecialistPST Pacific Standard TimePTI Progranmed Test Input

30

U.S, Gov t

PTT Push to TalkRCS Reaction Control SystemR&D Research and DevelopmentRIMU Redundant Inertial Measurement UnitRME-III Radiation Monitoring Experiment-IllSAM Shuttle Activation MonitorSMS Shuttle Mission SimulatorSpaDVOS Spaceborne Direct View Optical SystemTCDT Terminal Count Demonstration TestTEM Tethered Electronics ModuleTV TelevisionU.S. United StatesUAV Unmanned Aerial VehicleUHF Ultrahigh FrequencyVFT Visual Function TesterVTR Video Tape RecorderWCCS Wireless Communication System

31

APPEND BlL

Optical Equipment and Results of Shuttle Overhead Window Tests

1. SpaDVOS Description Summary.

a. Optical System:

Light rays from the ground site pass through the shuttle overhead windows andare reflected by the front surface mirror. To permit pointing and tracking of groundsites, the mirror rotates about two axes: one in the plane of the mirror and the othercoincident with points left and right of the ground track. Rotation of the mirror aboutthe optical axes is used to point in or opposed to the direction of travel.

The mirror position is controlled by a mechanical system consisting of gears, belts,and a control handle. Movement of the control handle in the fore/aft direction withrespect to the shuttle causes the entire mirror assembly to rotate about the optical axison the double loaded bearings upon which the assembly is mounted. This action causesthe along track pointing angle of the optical system to change one degree for everydegree that the handle is rotated.

Movement of the control handle in the side-to-side direction causes the mirror torotate around the axis in the plane of the mirror. This is accomplished by a gear andbelt system. The axis to which the control handle is rigidly attached is connected to agear on the side of the mirror head assembly. This gear drives a second gear by meansof a chain belt, achieving a 4:1 reduction in rotation. The position of the mirror changesfour degrees for every degree that the handle is rotated in the side-to-side direction.

Rays from the external scene are reflected by the pointing mirror into the zoomobjective lens. This lens is a Vivitar telephoto zoom, 120 to 600 mm focal length, f/#5.6-8.0, 82 mm diameter; changeable lenses provide f/# to 22.0. The lens has its object focusfixed at infinity since only distant targets will be observed. The focal length andaperture of the objective lens are set by the position of levers mechanically attached tothe focal length selection ring and f-stop ring respectively. After a 90 degree reflectionfrom a front surface mirror, a real image of the external scene is formed at the back focalplane of the lens. A 60 mm focal length field lens is also located at the back focal planeof the objective lens. This lens has no optical power with respect to the image, butincreases light throughput by collecting the chief rays of the image forming bundles somore rays pass through the exit pupil of the system.

After the field lens, another from surface mirror is used to reflect the rays 90degrees. A pair of lenses then relay and magnify the intermediate image. The first lens,focal length 135 mm, collimate the incoming rays. These parallel rays pass through thepechan prism located between the two lens. The prism is mounted in a rotatingassembly which is mechanically connected to the rotating mirror head. Because of the

B-I

mirror rotation system, the incoming image is rotated one degree for every degree ofmirror rotation about the principal optical axis. The pechan prism causes an imagerotation of two degrees for every one degree of prism movement. Thus by rotating thepechan prism one degree clockwise for every two degrees of counterclockwise mirrorrotation, the observed image retains its orientation.

The second lens of the relay pair, 180 mm focal length, causes the collimated raysto converge. These rays pass through a penta-prism, which changes the optical path 90degrees without inverting or reversing the parity of the image. The light then enters acube beamsplitter which is cemented to the penta-prism. Some of the light istransmitted through the cube and forms a real image, which is viewed with theeyepiece. The remainder of the light is reflected upward, where is reflected again by aright-angle before forming an image at the CCD array of the video camera.

b. Electronic System.

The SpaDVOS's electronic system has two functions: to acquire data and to cue theobserver to the location of ground sites. These functions are performed by amicroprocessor based circuit consisting of : a 65C02 microprocessor, a 2048 by 8 bitstatic ram, a 32K EPROM, a vertical interval data inserter, a video multiplexer, opticalencoders. optical interrupters, a CCD array video camera, a LED display, a LCD, and adata entry keypad.

First, two 1024 pulse optical encoders (BEI No. E513-900-HD) interface directlywith the MPU to monitor the position (pointing angles) of the tracking mirror. Second,the encoders are calibrated by two opto-interrupters (Marktech No. MTSS-12000) whichtransmit position reference signals to the MPU. The third input to the MPU is from thedata entry keypad (Grayhill No. 86-BA2-001). The keypad allows the user to set theMET and to enter ground site cueing information. The final input to the MPU is thevideo signal generated by the CCD array camera (Sony model DXC-1011).

Information output by the MPU goes to the LED display, the LCD, and the videosignal. The LED display is internal to the SpaDVOS main unit. This display shows thealong track and cross tracking pointing angles when the system is in the run mode, andthe time to the target site.

B-2

c. Technical Parameters:5 1

Size 18.3 x 14.5 x 7.6 inchesWeight 36.52 poundsMagnification 4x -67x (using changeable eyepieces)Field of View 1-8 degreesField of Regard +/- 25 x +/- 45 degreesEyepieces 9mm, 21mm, 32mm and 40mmObjective Lens 120-600mm, f/5.6-22.0, 82mm diameterMicroprocessor 65C02Mirror Size 5 x 6 x 3/4 inches

2. (Summary of Space Shuttle Overhead Windows, Optical Tests, Final Report,Aerospace Report No. TR-0091(6508-21)-1, dated June 1991)

"On 1-2 August 1989, the optical quality of the space shuttle overhead windowswas tested at the Corning Glassworks plant in Canton, New York. The tests wereconducted by Karen P. Scott, David W. Warren, and Michael C. Wanke of the AerospaceCorporation. The tests were in support of the Military Man in Space program and werefunded by the U. S. Air Force. The purpose of the tests were to characterize the opticalquality of the overhead windows, especially when they are used in conjunction withdifferent aperture telescopes. This report first provides a simple review of the opticaltheory involved when windows are present in an optical system. Next, a review of thehardware used for the test is presented along with a full procedure on the photographic,visual, and interferometric tests that were conducted. Next, the results are presentedwith accompanying photographs that were taken during the test .... A review of testsperformed concnurrently by the Armstrong Aeromedical Research Laboratory are alsopresented in the report.

a. Visual photographic, and interferometric tests were performed on the spaceshuttle overhead windows to characterize the optical quality of these windows. An AirForce tri-bar target was viewed with an 8-in. telescope and a 5-in. telescope for thephotographic and visual tests. A Zygo Mark IV interferometer was used for theinterferometric tests. Results showed that the windows significantly degraded theperformance of both telescopes. At least a 1601% degradation in resolution was seen.The results of tests by Armstrong Aeromedical Research Laboratory were reviewed andfound to corroborate the Aerospace Corporation results.

b. The tests made it clear that the shuttle overhead windows were not designed tobe used in conjunction with medium aperture telescopes. Coming did not use itsoptical grade glass, and no optical surface finish was specified. Both telescopes used inthe test were affected by aberrations induced by the windows which were evident asmultiple overlapping images and severe astigmatism. The AAMRL tests conductedconcurrently with the Aerospace test found that the window aberrations become

13 The expected best resolution of SpaDVOS was 10-15 feet (NIRS 3).

B-3

apparent for aperture diameters greater than 2 inches. At an aperture of 3 inches, theresolution of the optics was degraded moderately, but the AAMRL results still foundthat this aperture yielded the best resolution. The cutoff point, at which increasing theaperture fails to increase resolving power, still is unclear.

c. Test conclusions state, when an optical system is used in conjunction with awindow port, the window must be designed for that use. Space Station Freedom, theSpace Shuttle, Spacelab, and Spacehab have the facilities to hold high optical qualitywindows. For future experimentation or programs that require the use of high-resolution optical systems within one of the above facilities, it is critical to designsuitable windows to specifically meet these needs.

BEST APPROXIMATE TELESCOPE DIAMETER FOR ORBITER OVERHEAD WINDOWS

4-

High Value__________ ____

(Low Resolution) Representative Only: ValuesNot From Final Data

3-

Telescope

Diffraction Limit>

Resolution CApproximate Scale- 2"

SUnit = 10 arcsec

EWinaow

Aberrational Effects

Low Value -Best Resolution Possible -----

(High Resolution)

0 1 2 3 4Small Size inches Large Size

(Low Resolution) (High Resoluticn)

Diameter, Effective. for Utilized Portion of Orbiter Overhead Window

B-4

WINOCW ABERRATIONAL EFFECTS CURVE

8H~cn Vatue

:LowRes~w:on) Resotru:.orj= Cce^,c~eirt Cefer,!-'ea Qt.Measureo W,rcow

Resolution(Ac-,:•,,ra:e Scnae. ý "t,

um 1n• 0 arcz•ec I T-1

1= Oar~ec 21Aberrarionai 0fec.s i2'

Low Value(Higr' Resci•., cii•

0 '

0 2 inhe. 6

Small Size rices Larc.e SX.efSnall E!'ec-s of Aberfazions) iGreat -!!Pc:s ?o Aterra:fcrs.

Diameter, Effective for UlilizeO Portion of Winoow

TELESCOPE DIFFRACTION LIMIT CURVE

S

HKc Value i(Low AesOiu:;Zor

Constant (for a g:ven wave-er•::-

SRelrac*-r t;ec:.veDiameter of { or }

Resolution t" Reilec ir Pn-aryAc"r~x:.ra,•ae z:ca:e )7---

1U~ 0 arcsec

-YLew Value Diffracmton i mia

(Hign Resc•'tlcn l

0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Z ._

Small size lnces Larce ze'L~w Resotulloni 'H " esc.

Dlameter of Telescope Aperture

3. The following pages are reproduced from the Cargo Systems Manual: SpaDVOS,dated 1 October 1991, prepared by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, PayloadOperations Branch, Operations Division, JSC. The extract of this manual is included in thisAppendix because it provides descriptive information on the design of the SpaDVOSand its interfaces with the shuttle orbiter. It is the single authoritative source ofinformation on the Space-borne Direct View Optical System for use by JSC space shuttleplanning and operations support personnel. Schematic diagrams reflect the currentinformation available at time of publication and are constructed in accordance with theMission Operations Directorate Drafting Standards, Rev C, dated April 1987.

B-5

"APy t1AwLuL TO DTIc DOES W•OT PERMIT FULLY LEGTBLF, REPRODUNCT!TO1

JSC-24164

CONTENTS

Section Page

I INTRODUCTION . .... ....... . ....... .. 1-11.I OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-I1.2 PAYLOAD BACKGROUND ................... 1-11.3 PAYLOAD SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION .............. 1-11.3.1 Front Surface Tracking Mirror .. I.......... 1-51.3.2 Charce Coupled Device-Color Camera ........... 1-51.3.3 Zoom Telescope ..... ..... ... ..................... 1-51.3.4 Prlsms/Lensev/Evepieces 1................. -51.3.5 MounIn ExIn n.ons .................... 1 -81.3.6 Electronics. . ......... ...................... ... 1-81.3.7 Tracking Mirror Hand Controller. ..... ............ .... 1-81.4 ORBITER/SPAOVOS INTERFACES ..... ............... ... 1-11

2 OVERVI E ........................ 2-12.1 PHYSICAL OVERVIEW .................... 2-12.2 ELECTRICAL OVERVIEW .... ..... .................. ... 2-1

3 DISPLAYS AND CONTROLS ............. ................. 3-13.1 FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION ..... ..... ................. 3-13.2 SPADVOS KEYPAD ..... ... ..................... ... 3-3

4 SPADVOS OPERATIONS ....... ................... ... 4-I4.1 ON-ORBIT OPERATIONS .... ..... ... .................. 4-14.1.1 Pro-ramming Mode ..... ..... ... .................... 4-14.1.2 Run Made ............ ........................ ... 4-14.1.3 Cue Made. . ........ ........................ ... 4-34.2 RESOLUTION CHART ............ .................... 4-34.3 SAFETY ..... ..... ......................... ... 4-64.4 ATTITUDE CONSTRAINT .... ... .................. ... 4-64.5 POSTFLIGHT ANALYSIS ...... ....... .................. 4-6

Appendix

A ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ..... ............... ... A-I

CSM CHANGE PROCEDURE ..... ..... .................. B-1

Table

3-1 FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION ................. 3-1

FIGURES

Figure

1-i SpaOVOS aft view ........ ... .................... 1-21-2 SpaDVOS bottom view .... ..... ... .................. 1-31-3 SpaDVOS port view .... ... ................... .... 1-41-4 SpaOVOS configuration diagram .... ............. .... 1-61-5 Shuttle telescope ... ................... .... 1-71-6 Mounting extensions to AFD winýow interface ....... 1-91-7 Tracking mirror hand controller ...... ... ............ 1-10

2-1 SpaDVOS system mounted to AFD overhead winoows ... ..... 2-2

2-2 Electrical interface with SpaDVOS and orbiter ..... ... 2-3

3-1 Keypad and external LED display ...... ............ ... 3-3

4-1 Example SoaDVOS internal display ..... ... ............ 4-24-2 Cueing system operation ................ 4-44-3 SpaDVOS resolution chart ..... ..... ................ 4-5

JSC-24164

SECTION IINTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVE

The Spaceborne Direct View Optical System (SpaDVOS) payload will be used toinvestigate man's capability to acquire and extract information from Earth-based sites in real time using a direct view optical system in the orbiter.

1.2 PAYLOAD BACKGROUND

The SpaDVOS consists of a manually controlled zoom telescope, a chargecoupled device (CCD) array camera, a small microcontroller for programmingtargets and driving internal and external displays, and supportingelectronics enclosed in an aluminum housing. The system requires twostandard middeck lockers during the ascent and entry phases of flight.During on-orbit operations, the flightcrew will unstow and assemble theSpaDVOS equipment. The unit is then mounted to the aft flight deck (AFD)overhead windows and secured by the sunshade latches. The mounting systemincorporates the inboard sunshade clamps of windows W7 and W8.

1.3 PAYLOAD SYSTEMS DESCRIPTION

The SpaDVOS is powered from the orbiter 28 V dc power system via the SpaceShuttle Program (SSP)-supplied standard 2B V dc power harness and contains a1-amp fuse in the SpaDVOS main power circuit. The SpaDVOS video camerasignal is routed to the orbiter video tape recorder (VTR) via an SSP-supplied VTR cable. The SpaDVOS has a control weight of 54 pounds. Themain housing has dimensions of 15-1/4 by 12-1/8 by 7-5/8 inches.

Figures 1-i through 1-3 show the various crew and orbiter interfaces. WhenSpaDVOS is mounted to the AFD overhead windows, figure 1-1 is a view lookingaft which shows the eyepiece, data entry keypad, and associated liquidcrystal display (LCD). The tracking mirror assembly is located on the leftside of the unit. Figure 1-2 shows a view of the bottom side of theSpaDVOS. The controls located here are the f-stop, focal length, andtracking mirror lever. Figure 1-3 is a view of the port side which includesSpaDVOS interfacing jacks for orbiter 28 V dc power, video signal output,hand controller (interfacing connector not shown, J3), power switch, andoperational and spare fuses.

JSC-24164

1.3.1 Front Surface Tracking Mirror

Figure 1-4 shows the internal layout of the SpaDVOS.

The front surface tracking mirror is contained in an aluminum housing whichis attached to the SpaDVOS main housing during on-orbit experiment setup.The mirror is manufactured of 98 percent silica and 2 percent proprietarymaterial. The mirror is glued to an aluminum plate and is also held withfour clamps. A transparent mirror cover provides mirror protection andallows inspection for mirror damage/breakage during on-orbit assembly of theexperiment.

1.3.2 CharQe Coupled Device Color Camera

The CCD color camera is a Sony DXC-101 TV color camera. This cameraproduces a standard 525 RS 170 video signal. Digital information containingtracking mirror position and current mission elapsed time (MET) is writtenonto lines 14 and 15 of the video image. The observed sites are recordedwith the CCD, and the images are transferred to the orbiter VTR via an SSP-provided VTR interface cable. The camera is powered by 12 V dc and consumes4.2 W.

1.3.3 Zoom Telescope

The manually controlled zoom telescope (fig. 1-4) is manufactured by Vivitarand provides a 120-600mm focal length, an aperture range of f5.6-f32, and adiameter of 82mm. The lens has its object focus fixed at infinity sinceonly distant targets will be observed. The focal length and aperture of thelens are set by the position of levers mechanically attached to the focallength selection ring and f-stop ring, respectively. A transparent cover onthe Spa0VOS housing allows for inspection of the scope lens for damageduring on-orbit assembly of the experiment.

1.3.4 Prisms/Lenses/Eyepieces

The prisms and lenses used in the SpaDVOS are off-the-shelf items providedby various vendors. The eyepieces are also standard off-the-shelf Tele-Vueeyepieces. Excluding the zoom lens, there are three other lenses: 60mm,135mm, and 180mm (fig. 1-5). The 60mm lens is used to increase the lightflow through the system. After the 60mm lens, a 135mm lens is used tocollimate the light rays before passing them through the pechan prism. Thepechan prism is used to retain an upright orientation of the image. The180mm lens is used to converge the image rays. These rays then pass througha penta prism which is used to change the optical path without inverting orreversing the image. The final component is a beam splitter which passesthe image to the observer and also to the CCD camera.

2SC-24�64

:3 -

:3

- / iI\- I

- - C0

I ______ �1

-I

CU

I -

I -

I -

_ / L.

I - _-�

:3

- I

:3 * -

z� yZ -

- :3

00

E (

em Ir0E:c

'-I I

2r ISE ; aI =

JSC-24164

Four eyepieces (9, 20, 32, and 40mm) are available to be flown. Theeyepiece is threaded for insertion into the SpaDVOS unit and is held inplace with a set screw located on the underside of SpaDVOS.

1.3.5 Mounting Extensions

The SpaDVOS uses a combination of extension legs to mount to the overheadwindows. Figure 1-I shows the assembled extensions once attached toSpaDVOS. Figure 1-6 shows details of extension legs and the overhead windowinterface.

1.3.6 Electronics

The SpaDVOS electronics provide dc/dc down-conversion of orbiter-supplied 28V dc to -5 V, +5 V, and +12 V dc for use by the CCD camera, light-emittingdiode (LED) display, and keyboard electronics. The SpaOVOS electronicsystem is controlled by a microprocessor unit (MPU), which receives inputsfrom four sources. First, two 1024-pulse optical encoders interfacedirectly with the MPU to monitor the position of the tracking mirror.Second, the encoders are calibrated by two opto-interrupters which transmitposition reference signals to the MPU. The third input to the MPU comesfrom the data entry keyboard. The final input to the MPU is the videosignal generated by the CCD array camera.

Information output by the MPU goes to the LED display, the LCD, and thevideo signal. The video signal output by the MPU is identical to the inputsignal except that mirror pointing angles and the MET are written on lines14 and 15 by the vertical interval data inserter and the video multiplexercircuitry.

The electronic system is fused using a 1-amp fuse and has 16-gauge wireupstream of the fuse and 22-gauge wire downstream. The wire is Tefloncoated. (In section 2, see figure 2-2.)

1.3.7 TrackinQ Mirror Hand Controller

A dc motor has been added to aid the crewmember in tracking the site in thealong-track axis. This motor is internal to the SpaDVOS unit and iscontrollable via a modified aircraft hand controller. The controller,figure 1-7, has three switches which control: (1) on/off switch, (2)attitude switch to select between orbiter -XVV or +XVV, and (3) motionswitch that, when activated, will drive the mirror assemoly in the along-track direction from target acquisition of signal (AOS) until target loss ofsignal. This mechanism diminishes erratic tracking motions that can beinduced when tracking in a manual configuration.

I-2164

fS

- 7-

-w e-

-cu

S a 0 ~- -0c3

oL.

:AC

Fa0

.c oe0

.wp .0.

OR VAIAL'z *O TICDOS NT PP.M'I FULYECOTY-71

25C-24164

N at use d

÷xvv/-xvv

Cable. awg typeAlong-track with Teflon,control 24 Inches sheathed

On/off

Figure 1-7.- Tracking mirror hand controller.

1.4 ORBITER/SPADVOS INTERFACES

The SpaDVOS-to-orbiter interfaces consist of a 28 V dc power interface, aVTR interface, and a mechanical mounting to the AFD overhead windows. Thedc power and video interfaces are on panel 019. The video signal interfaceswith the TV jack, ind the power is providea by 28 volts MN A. Themechanical mounting consists of the inward sunshade clamps on windows W7 arcW8. In section 2, see figure 2-1.

JSC-24164

SECTION 2OV E V I EW

2.1 PHYSICAL OVERVIEW

Figure 2-1 shows the assembled SpaDVOS system when it is mounted to the AFDoverhead windows. The inset illustrates the system in detail.

2.2 ELECTRICAL OVERVIEW

SpaDVOS uses 28 V dc from the orbiter AFD panel 019. The system uses 18.2 Wnominally and 18.2 W peak. Figure 2-2 details the electrical interface withSpaDVOS and the orbiter.

zz\

J X

u F,

Figure 2-i.- SpaDVOS systzem mountea to jlFD ýver~eao ~'wi5aw

JSC-24164

ri(, , IIF-

I V

r7 * y÷ I-:o i"Y

D El

:~~~~ 741I,',I' I I I-

Ii II-,0

I ;I

L- CL

T-7

C - -1 -- ---

Li -- - -- -

%vOP AVIAL-ODI OSNTPRITFLj EIL Ll.DCfO

JSC-24164

SECTION 3DISPLAYS AND CONTROLS

3.1 FUNCTION OESCRIPTION

A crewmember will acquire and track both preselected and oppcrtunity targetareas while making a video/audio recording. The preselected target areaswill be uplinked for programming into SpaDVOS. When the orbiter passesthese preselected targets, SpaDVOS will use internal displays to direct thecrewmember where to point the mirror. Table 3-i lists the functionaldescription of the crew interfaces to SpaDVOS.

TABLE 3-1.- FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTION

Item Type *evice Function

JO Connector port Output connector port forMirror encoder mirror encoder cable.

Feedback of mirror anglesystem cue

JI Connector port Output connectoi port forVideo out incerfaclng with the closed-

circuit televislon (CCTV)interconnect cablI e supply ngvideo signal to orbiter videoswitching unit (VSU) forvideo recording

J2 Connector port Input connector port for28 V dC interfacing with dC power

cable supplying 28 V dc power

J3 Connector port Input connector Pon for handHand controller. Feedback infor-controller mation includes tracking

"motor direction, SPeed. andON/OFF control

Fuse 1-am 1-amp fuse Protects system from excessiveSLO-SLO voltageSPARE

S1 Two-cosition WI - Suetlies 28 V dc power toPOWER toggle gitci tile SDVOS system

OH-OFF (maintain- OFF - Remioves poser fe themaintain) SPADVOS system

Data entry 12-key oushbutton Used to input MET, target MET.keyooard keyboard ama target crosstrack angles

LiQuid crystal 6-dfqlt liquid crystal oispaIys information inputdisplay display thriough keyboard

Focal length Push-pull handle Used to adjust focal length ofoptical system. Cavablerange of 12S-600m

f-stop Pusn-Oull handle Used to adjust f-stop ofoptical system. Caaplerange of f5.6-f3Z

Hand controller Two-position switch Supplies power to a dc motor topower-ON/OFF drive the tracking mirror In

the along-track direct on

Hand controller Two-oositio" switch Selects proper attitude forattitude mirror assembly tracking.switch Selects between .xVV and -IVY

Hand controller Momentary switch Orives the mIrror assemb)y frommotion switcn target AOS through LOS 4t

crewomeers, disCretion

JSC-24164

3.2 SPAOVOS KEYPAD

The crewmember will input the preselected targets into SpaOVOS via a keypad(see fig. 3-1). The crewmember will input the time of closest approach(TCA) in hour, minute, and second and thei the crosstrack angle to thenearest 10th degree. there are also specialty keys on the keypad to performthe following functiois:

1. +/- key: Toggles between allowable attitudes, either nose First (-ZLV+XVV) or tail first (-ZLV -XVV). Also used to enter ± de-grees of cross-track angle.

2. ENTER key: Used to enter the MET, altitude, TCA, velocity, and cross-

track angles into the microcontroller.

3. SETUP key: Toggles between the RUN and PROGRAM modes of operation.

4. LED key: Used to adjust brightness of the internal displays. Theinternal displays can be adjusted to three levels ofbrightness.

(LCD DISPLAY)

1 2 3 LED

4 5 6

7 8. 9

+/- 0 ENTER SETUP

Figure 3-1.- Keypad and external LCD display.

JSC-24164

SECTION 4SPADVOS OPERATIONS

4.1 ON-ORBIT OPERATIONS

SpaOVOS has three modes of operation: programming, run, and cue.

4.1.1 Programming Mode

This mode is entered during activation. The program mode is active whenentering the following parameters:

a. Orbiter attitude

b. Setting the SpaDVOS clock to current MET

c. TCA

d, Target crosstrack angle

e. Orbiter altitude

f. Orbiter velocity

Note: If an error is made when inputting parameters b through f, thereprogramming procedure must be run to correct the improper value.If an error is made upon inputting parameter a, power cycle SpaDVOSand begin again.

4.1.2 Run Mode

Once the above parameters have been input, the crewmember should press theSETUP key. This action will transition SpaDVOS to the run mode. In thismode the external display will show a number (1-4) corresponding to theupcoming target site that was programmed into SpaDVOS during the programmode. Also appearing will be a time (HR:MN:SEC) which will be counting downto that site's TCA.

In the run mode, the internal display will show the along-track pointingerror (top LED) and the crosstrack point 4 ng error (bottom LED) in degrees.See figure 4-i.

Note: While in the run mode, pressing the SETUP key will toggle SpaDVOSbetween the program and run modes of operation. This toggling isrequired to change any parameters that were incorrectly enteredduring the programming mode.

Run mode Cue mode

Along-track pointing +32 C+32 Along-track error (seconds)angle (degrees)

Crosstrack pointing Crosstrack error (degrees)angle (degrees)

Figure 4-1.- Example SpaDVOS Internal display.

I i I I I I i I-73.0 -60.0 -55.0 -38.0 0.0 27.0 45.0 SO.0

Tim relative to TCA

Figure 4-2.. Cueing system operation.

JSC-24164

4.1.3 Cue Mode

Sixty seconds before the TCA of the upcoming ground site, the system willautomatically display CUE MODE on the internal LED's for 5 seconds,indicating that the cue mode has been entered. The top LED will thendisplay the along-track pointing error in seconds. This error is thedifference between the TCA of the upcoming ground site and the TCA for thearea that is in the instantaneous field-of-view (FOV). The bottom LED willdisplay the crosstrack pointing error, which is the difference between thepresent crosstrack pointing angle and the crosstrack pointing angle requiredto place the desired ground site within the FOV (fig. 4-1). By manipulatingthe mirror control handle such that both LED's display "0," the user will,in theory, be placing the desired ground site in the center of his FOV.Upon entering the cueing mode, the external LCD will display a "C" followedby the number of the ground site and the time until its TCA. Forty-fiveseconds after TCA, both the LED's and LCD will return to the run mode.

Figure 4-2 shows the cueing mode operation for a second programmed site asrelated to the TCA.

Note: If additional targets are programmed into SpaDVOS, the LCD willdisplay the next site number (2-4) and TCA. If the last programmedtarget was just viewed, the LCD will display the MET.

4.2 RESOLUTION CHART

Normally, two continental United States (CONUS) ground sites will be set upto include a resolution chart to help in quantifying image clarity andresolution. This chart will have two columns and five rows which willcontain varying sizes of circles in each cell. Using the orbiter VTR, the,;rewmember will then annotate any difficulties that are observed whiletrying to locate each circle. See figure 4-3 for an example of theresolution chart.

A B

1213 0S* IF

5 T

15'

4.3 SAFETY

SpaOVOS must be temporarily stowed after viewing the designated targets.The targets will be scheduled for successive orbits so that, once thesetargets have been viewed, SpaDVOS may be temporarily stowed for an extendedperiod of time before the next viewing opportunity.

In case of emergency deorbit, the SpaDVOS can be stowed in less than 20minutes.

4.4 ATTITUDE CONSTRAINT

For SpaDVOS to properly compute and display crosstrack and longitude angleson the internal display, operations are limited to orbiter attitudes oftXVV-ZLV. A deadband of 10 is also required to support SpaDVOS operations.

4.5" POSTFLIGHT ANALYSIS

To accurately correlate SpaDVOS data with geophysical location, the AirForce requires orbiter navigation and position data throughout the SpaDVOSactivity. THRIFT format 3317 is required. This format includes statevector and attitude data.

JSC-24164

APPENDIX AACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AFO aft flight deckAOS acquisition of signal

CCD charge couplpd deviceCCTV closed-circuit televisionCONUS continental United States

FOV field of view

LCD liquid crystal displayLED light emitting diodeLOS loss of signal

MET mission elapsed timeMPU microprocessor unit

SpaDVOS spaceborne direct view optical system

SSP Space Shuttle Program

TCA time of closest approach

V dc volts direct currentVSU video switching unitVTR video tape recorder

±XVV ±X axis into velocity vector

-ZLV -Z axis perpendicular to Earth radial vector

Optical Resolution Panels

The following information is a summary -1 from the After Action Report For TheTerra Scout Experiment on the STS-44 Shuttle Mission, dated December 31, 1991, preparedby Georgia Tech Research Institute. Analysis described in the complete report attemptsto consider realistically the sizes of targets that can be observed from space using theSpaDVOS. The analysis looked at the problem from the points of view of the minimumtarget size and minimum target contrast that an observer can be expected to be able todetect using SpaDVOS under suitable atmospheric conditions.

1. Ground Resolution Sites.

a. Physical Descri-ition:

Figure C-1 depicts a typical configuration for either the Optical Resolution Panelsused in Australia and Hawaii or the Optical Resolution Grid Circles deployed at CapeCanaveral AFS, FL. The relative positions of each white circle on the Optical ResolutionPanel could be changed as required to fit the test plan deployment pattern setsdeveloped for the experiment. The Optical Resolution Panels are transportable and arefully contained so that sufficient ground space to deploy them is all that is required. Inthe case of the Optical Resolution Circles, a painted surface "grid", such as that shown inFigure C-2 is required. At Cape Canaveral AFS, a painted griW., which was used forother earlier experiments, was expanded for Terra Scout and used as the backgroundfor the Optical Resolution Circles.

C - 1 OP=W Pai mn Par* Conft~urpn

C-i

I . ........_.

nmmnm-\mmr

c - 2 opft Rem~an Panm chaws l coo. cammoww AnS. FL.

Each Optical Resolution Panel consists of an array of white circles fastened to black

squares, surrounded by a white border. Figure C-3 shows the configuration of an

Optical Resolution Sub-Panel. It is designed so that with the exception of the bottom

panel, the individual panels can be turned by 180 degrees to place the circle on either

the right or left side of the panel. The bottom panel has a detachable circle that can be

moved from one side to another and attached by velcro. The panels are fastened

together by velcro, with alternate mating snap-connectors. Velcro is affixed along the

long sides of every panel to allow for 180 degree rotation. With the exception of the

bottom panel, the circles are permanently sewn to the contrasting square background,and the borders are sewn to the panels in the same manner. To save weight, the larger

circles were not sewn over the squares. but sewn into the squares so that two

thicknesses of material would not be required. The smaller circles (nine-, six, and tbree-

foot) are removable and can be placed on any vacant black square within the OpticalResolution Panel. More information on specifications, materials, construction,packaging and shipping is available in the After Action Report referenced above.

OHI~ .pL_-,.--•, ---1I"'

-r-low is

C - 3 s•.an.PLO Cou,;,gwnan.

C-2

b. Predetermined Optical Resolution Panel configurations were deployed at eachof the respective ground sites. These configurations were chosen so that the ShuttleObserver would not be presented with repetitive patterns during successive orbits. Thepatterns at each site were generally changed for different orbits, except when successiveorbits over a site provided optimum conditions for viewing and there would not beenough time to rearrange the patterns.

2. Ground Measurements.

Measured contrast data was obtained from each deployment sight for eachspecified orbital viewing time. The measurements were made with photometers at theapproximate same angles (determined by x-track and Max El. angle data provided byNASA) from which the Shuttle Observer would view the Optical Resolution Panels atthe maximum elevation angle over the site. A minimum of three measurements were tobe made at each site at the time when the Shuttle was to pass overhead, This wasdeemed sufficient to quantify overall Optical Resolution Panel contrast since theconstruction of the panels is homogeneous throughout (same materials, etc.) and thedeployment sites were relatively flat.

Multiple measurements were accomplished at all locations except Amberly,Australia and the reason for only taking one set of measurements there is unknown.However, the measurements taken at Amberly are believed to be representative ofoverall panel contrast at each particular viewing time. Since conditions at CapeCanaveral AFS, FL were different from those of the other deployment sites (fabric on apainted strip), multiple measurements were made of several circles and areas ofpavement during the viewing times.

The resulting contrast measurements were generally consistent within one or twopercent, and indicate a reasonably good contrast ratio at the times of viewing. It canalso be seen from some of the measurements that the absolute level of measuredluminance decreased during the measurement times. This was attributed to the time ofday when the sun angle was extremely low and the sun was rapidly disappearingbehind the horizon.

C-3

Figures C-4, C-5 Paint Contrast Tests

C -4 TERRA SCOUT Paint Conmtast Tests

Weather-Worn Painted Surface 20 June 91 2:30 p.m. EDT

Concrete Surface Asphalt Surface

White Black Conrast White Black Contrast

G- (1) 80.8 3.4 91.9% (1) 79.0 3.8 90.9%

B8 (2) 69.0 4.8 86.9%/, (2) 65.8 4.2 88.0%

W- (3) 38.3 5.6 73.0% (3) 51.9 8.6 77.0%

"G - Good"6 = Bad"W - Worst

C -5 TERRA SCOUT Paint Contrast Tests (2nd Coat)

2nd Coat FulI-Coveraqe Painted Surface 21 June 91 10:50 a.m. EDT

Concrete Surface Asphalt Surface

White Black Contrast While Black Contrast

Co 48.0 1.81 92.7% 54.0 2.1 92.5%

so 56.4 2.3 I 92.2% 51.2 2.1 92.0%

"C- Cloudy"S - Partial Sun

Reduction in contrast due to an optical insnmlert such as a telescope or a pair of

binoculars is caused by a decrease in the modulation transfer function (MTF) of the

instrument with increasing spatial frequency. This statement simply means that as objects

are placed closer and closer together, it becames more and more difficult to tell where

one object ends and another begins. The actual physical parameter that is reduced is the

modulation contrast function (MCF) which is simply related to the MTF and may be

considered to be almost the same for most applications.

C-4

3. Expected Camera Resolution Limits.

The Sony DXC-101 camera has 510x492 resolution elements, and each pixel is 13microns vertical x 17 microns horizontal. This arrangement gives an imaging area of8.67mm x 6.40mm. In the image plane of SpaDVOS corresponding to the TV cameracathode, one cycle therefore occupies 4.69x10" 2 mm, so that there are 21.3 cycles/mm.The area occupied by each of the various circles of the Optical Resolution Panels varieson the TV camera cathode. If this area is less than one pixel, it will not be possible toresolve that particular circle using the TV camera. The cut-off occurs for a circle 36 feetin diameter, so that only 80, 50, and 36 foot circles would be resolved with the camera.As a practical matter, it is unlikely that the 36 foot circle would be resolved, because itwould appear to be modulated by the relative motion of the spacecraft and theresolution panel on the ground. A careful observer might be able to discern that a circleis present, but might not be able to tell on which side of the overall panel it lies becauseof this modulation. The telephoto lens of the camera imposes additional limitation onthe ability of the TV camera to resolve the individual sub-panels. Considering thislimitation and that imposed by the resolution of the TV cathode, together withcontributions by the MTFs of the intervening optical elements and atmosphericdegradation, it must be concluded that only the 80 and 50 foot circles would be resolvedby the TV camera, and that resolution of the latter circle will be marginal.

4. Expected Observer Resolution Limits.

The parameter which determines whether or not an object can be detected from agiven range is the contrast of the object. Contrast C is defined as the brightness of thestimulus Bs minus the brightness of its background divided by this backgroundbrightness (Bo (1), C=Bs-B0 / Bo). In designing an experiment such as that proposed forthe SpaDVOS, one would begin with evaluation targets which have 100% contrast, ifpossible. Practically, such targets are not available, so that reasonable contrasts are inthe range 80-95%. To determine whether or not an object can be detected, the effects ofother parameters on the contrast must be considered. The atmosphere has a givencontrast transmission because of scattering by aerosols and molecular attenuation.Atmospheric turbulence also affects contrast. Perhaps the most important factoraffecting contrast of a target as viewed by an observer is the modulation transferfunction of the optical system. Considering all of these contributions to imagedegradation, the modulation transfer function (MTF) of the SpaDVOS is the MTF due toatmospheric turbulence, and the contrast degradation due to atmospheric attenuation.The overall degradation for the Terra Scout experiment is a combination of these factorcplus other optical components in the system, the space shuttle window, and otherimmeasurable factors such as reflections and back-lighting of the observer's station.Additional technical analysis of the SpaDVOS can be obtained from the referenced AfterAction Report or by contacting AAMRL.

C-3

5. In conclusion, analysis was attempted to consider realistically the sizes of targetsthat can be observed from space using the SpaDVOS. The analysis looked at theproblem from the points of view of the minimum target size and minimum targetcontrast that an observer can be expected to be able to detect using the SpaDVOS undersuitable atmospheric conditions, Based on these calculations, it is concluded that thesmallest of the deployed targets that can be seen by an observer using SpaDVOS froman altitude of 200 nautical miles is 36 feet in diameter. The smallest of these targets thatcan be discerned using the TV camera is 50 feet in diameter because of the limitation ofihe TV cathode pixel spacing. The 36 foot circle might actually be detectable with the TVcamera, but it would not be possible to tell on which side of the resolution panel thecircle lies because its intensity would be modulated by the relative motion of thespacecraft and target.

It also becomes obvious that the resolution limitation of this experiment is theVivitar lens used on the SpaDVOS. A lens designed for photographic applicationscannot be expected to have outstanding resolution because the camera performance islimited by granularity of the film. The balance of this instrument seems to be carefullyand thoughtfully designed, and would probably be capable of excellent performance ifthe Vivitar were replaced with a custom designed lens with the same specifications.Such lenses can be obtained which approach diffraction-limited performance. It ispossible to obtain such a lens, but the cost might be several thousands of dollars.Analysis shows that a 9 foot circle could be detected with SpaDVOS at 60X and a 12.5foot circle at 40X using the lens under the same conditions of altitude and atmosphere.The performance of the TV camera would be unaffected, however, because the limit onits performance is given by the granularity of the camera cathode and not by .heresolution of the optical instrument.

C-6

The following is the NASA STS-44 Brightness Value Study:

D-1

ENVIRONMENT REMOTE SENSINGANALYSIS FACILITY

(ERSAF)STS-44 Brightness Value Study

GOAL:This study was undertaken to estimate the atmospheric influence to

viewing conditions as observed from the Space Shuttle dunng STS-44. In mostexperiments that attempt to measure instrument spatial resolution, theatmosphere has been considered to be "clean" in clouds-free regions whenviewing targets from the Space Shuttle. Recent study results havedemonstrated that by studying the cloud free pixels from the visible channel ofgeostationary satellites, we can determine the potential variability of light topenetrate the atmosphere and its contribution/degradation to Earthobservations in the visible wave length (400 - 740A). From these data,estimates of viewing conditions are presented in this report.

THEORY:As the contrast of a scene increases, the minimum brightness value

(darkest object) will decrease in the visible wavelength. This implies that thereis less path radiance occurring in the scene and imagery of the scene will havea better overall resolution. Light reflecting off objects on the earth will have a"truer" path with less scattering. In this study a limited sample set (2-3 weeks) of

. satellite data were used to determined the cloud-free minimum and meanbrightness (radiance) for Brisbane, Darwin (Learmouth), Hawaii (Ford Island),and Florida (Cape Canaveral).

METHODOLOGY: "Data with constant viewing angles, constant sunangle, homogeneous background"

The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM), in Australia and the University ofWisconsin gathered geostationary satellite data for three weeks for post-missionanalysis at ERSAF. A 64 x 64 array study area was selected from each of thefour sites. Study areas were selected based on homogeneous cover (oceansea surface) and based on minimal sun glint contribution to the total reflectedvisible energy that the satellite imaged. Brightness thresholds were selected foreach of the sites to filter out the clouds in the arrays (cirrus/cumulus). The clouddetection filter was a single pass on the visible data (no IR used) so it ispossible for thin cirrus to be included in the cloud-free pixels evaluated.Samples that were excessively cloudy were excluded from the statistics (if >90% of pixels in the sample had brightness values above the threshold). Thesolar angle is assumed to be constant as the samples were taken with twoweeks of each other during the winter solstice and at the same time of day foreach site as close to the over-flight time as possible.

CLASSIFICATION OF Overflight OBSERVATIONS:The viewing condition classification for each pass is based on which

standard deviation category the mean brightness value for that day hadcompared with the mean of the entire sample. The standard deviation (s)categories were:

Daily Mean Viewing Conditions>+1 s poor0 -> +Is marginal-1s -> 0 good<-is very good

were "s" is the standard deviation.

For example, the mean brightness value (BV) for a observation period was 45.0and the standard deviation was +/- 2.0 BV and the recorded mean BV for thenlv drfinht wo 4A9 than th, WouaQ r' *i;,ir. ,,,^,,I, ',... ... J"

RESULTS:

1. BRISBANE:

o Threshold Brightness Value: 48.00

o Mean Brightness Value 44.45

o Stariard Deviation of DailyMean Brightness Values 2.07

o Mean Minimum Brightness Value 37.52

STS-44 Mission Comparisons:

* 27 NOV 91 OverflightSample (AREA1146 - 27 NOV 1991/21:31GMT)

MEAN Brightness Value 46.15MIN Brightness Value 40.00STANDARD DEVIATION

CLASSIFICATION Marginal ViewingConditions

* 29 NOV 91 Overflight:

Sample (AREA1149 - 29 NOV 1991/21:31GMT)MEAN Brightness Value 44.65MIN Brightness Value 40.00STANDARD DEVIATION

CLASSIFICATION Marginal ViewingConditions

Brightness Value -GMS Satellite

0D N3 m6 W N) .6o 0

1 2-Nov-91

1 4-Nov-91

16-Nov-91 M0)O 17-Nov-91

'0 18-Nov-91

S19-Nov-91 c

S20-Nov-91

ClO 22-Nov-91 -

23-Nov-91 0

S2- Nov-91

25-Nov-91 -

26-Nov-91 00z 0O 27-Nov-91 STS-44 Pass

0 U28-Nov-91 c CA <

~'29-Nov-91 -< STS-44 Pass -

S30-Nov-91 - U002-Dec-91

-L Decl9

3-Dec-91

4-Dec-91

5-Dec-91

Good <-- Relative Viewing Quality - > Poor

z >CD zI -

M.

ac am ic am mc -c~ I a) a a - ac) aM a

Cfl Cf U ~ ~ I) CI) C/ CI C) IW ICI CI ) :0) Awd (I W CI) cI) a) 2n CD

10 O O to 10O 10~ 10 o to 10 to ' 0o toý 0 '0 :C!~ ~ ~ ý I

1 1(11 M Ab I W*' 1 0 -4 4 -IA- N--

I CD

0)0)01 ) m A lCJ ICY) IN lm~ Im 14M I aI) ID) 1Wn 10)a' 0) 'E

iý:&~~~ ~ ~ ~ 10 ICD -4 0C;

, ''m -0

<~ C.)

IC 0 : c): -L0nJO I i. I

Cl w I N ID tN_146110_-41__________IW'_IW______

CDCI

CO I~ j-4:.)~ 4. L 0

IC~)iC.)iW

JO) 1 OI)Ob.0 I) 0N0 N~I 010jl)0)1 I0'WC)IO N)~

IN)ý 4 0 )L -)C-.1 ;C . ; l4 t .: )Zn w c ; I n U!t -c . m . a

-- 4 1IA. NT I ~ I) wr% !C-.JMc- 0c~ )a iN to) i0)

2. LEARMOUTH (DARWIN)

o Threshold Brivhtness Value: 48.00

o Mean Brightness Value 45.08

o Standard Deviation of DailyMean Brightness Values 1.70

o Mean Minimum Brightness Value 38.72

STS-44 Mission Comparisons:

26 NOV 91 Overflight:Sample (AREA1114 - 25 NOV 1991/23:31GMT

MEAN Brightness Value 45.36MIN Brightness Value 40.00STANDARD DEVIATION

CLASSIFICATION Marginal ViewingConditions

* 29 NOV 91 Overflight:Sample (AREA1118 - 28 NOV 1991/23:31GMT)

MEAN Brightness Value 44.98MIN Brightness Value 40.00STANDARD DEVIATION

CLASSIFICATION Marginal ViewingConditions

* 1 DEC 91 Overflight:Sample (AREA1123 - 1 DEC 1991/23:31GMT)

MEAN Brightness Value 46.11MIN Brightness Value 40.00STANDARD DEVIATION

CLASSIFICATION Marginal ViewingConditions

Brightness Values -GMS Satellite

0o 0 f a cc 0

1 2-Nov-911 3-Nov-911 4-Nov-91

02 16-Nov-91W17-Nov-91

to 18-Nov-91 I00

S19-Nov-91Cl 20-Nov-91

21 -NV93F 21-Nov-91

-23-Nov-91

-&25-Nov-91 ~- STS-44 PaSS -

26-Nov-91

O 27-Nov-91 ~-28-Nov-91 STS-44 Pass 0

-. 29-Nov-91 <<

o30-Nov-91 -

0 1 -Dec-91 - STS-44 Pass-S2-Dec-91

WO 4-Dec-915-e-9 W

5-Dec-916-Dec-91

Good < - Relative Viewing Quality - > Poor

0 >441I

00 (1 N. W!C041 r*- C -3 N; coJ1 0; qr O O co0-. : C'O 1. -,: a) 0(0DC) ,,r ;c Ia.C

In ( '-Q" cn (0,0 In IT' I" (0ý Ctý c 0l , 0 Uti (0 o UI 0., N-fl -;r C (0Ln oc'J~ 0 ~ ;, o~ r .q " v- o

C' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - a1( OI" 0Z 'lzl 0iC). '(0c. ~1*....................................................................

ILO - r- 0 ) T = 4,W i-I .1WtctLlCI;RfM t 4 o ýa (

C cc 7 , l- c ; c : M k - I n 1W I ( I n s r- M , C r* .1r, (D ! D I> 10.CN: cf ' .c 0' (0 , .0()I':0t co)~ 10r t( I0' N\ (t I 'l 1 0lg fT;,-) l (1 1'

I ~CU

(01 (01 (0 Ci(I(0)i (0Cý ý 101 I01* (1 (0(01010 Ci ~iNIO40 'a'; 0i 'aj (0 aC's

0q)

In NI U 'a -VT (0! N C-3101 NI ai (01 (D (of 0, (71 r- krof c~ =1 (Sa; 14P - &) - - . -, I, I 04t.

0.) N . - -. M -,C) 1w I. 'W' C) (Q! ,, - 'C\Jia -a tcI - -. . -, , I-

~. Cl I Cal) ta Cal I Ca l C I C1l 1 a a C3 l Ca : a0 Ca I a Ca; Cl CoaI C-4, M l Cal Ca) CD!CaZ :WI 0)1 W~W I 0 W I W i0 I WI 0-W WI v I I W~jI CV I 0'i I ;', W

Cut ia C01 Call Cal wa Ca. W1l Cla7101< Cal Cal o! al a ,- Cal 40! Cal CD! ITl CD!u

m 1 t10 i 01co 101 M 1 1 CV10m 10101Iv0 o,1v). 1' ..1 It!~O -, -WW!q .

CO O O OIC I 010 01100! C000 0Ca0l10 cot 0o 0o z~cf!ocfo= wfm w)

0' i 00 (01 01I 01 0W Q' 0I 0D 0 0'I 0i 0D (l Ot 0Q 1 0D 0 0) 0~ Ia 0 0 0. 4 0)

Mat M'1Cl ccl Ia Ca CuM Cc Ca Cal Cu Cu Cul Cam l Cal Cum l Cu Cac Ca Cu Ia m Clatt

1 , ,I 0 ;) 0 I I I' , I W ,I I. .WI 0' Wi , 0 . 0 :1 0 . C 0) 0 z , 0 )Oil M i J... .in] CDr~ ...J7) 0J -I. C\,.. M.J710 o .I C ,.4 . I 1

3. HAWAII (FORD ISLAND):

o Threshold Brightness Value: 55.00

o Mean Brightness Value 51-.53

o Standard Deviation of DailyMean Brightness Values 1.34

o Mean Minimum Brightness Value 43.76

STS-44 Mission Comparisons:

26 NOV 91 Overflight:Sample (AREA5071 - 26 NOV 1991/00:01GMT)

MEAN Brightness Value 53.23MIN Brightness Value 45.00STANDARD DEVIATION

CLASSIFICATION Marginal-PoorViewing Conditions

* 29 NOV 91 Overflight:Sample (AREA5072 - 29 NOV 1991/00:31GMT)

MEAN Brightness Value 51.63MIN Brightness Value 45.00STANDARD DEVIATION

CLASSIFICATION Good-MarginalViewingConditions

"*1 DEC 91 OverflightSample (AREA5056 - 2 DEC 1991/00:01GMT)

MEAN Brightness Value 54.10MIN Brightness Value 52.00STANDARD DEVIATION

CLASSIFICATION PoorViewingConditions

Brightness Value -GOES Satellite

A. a~) oo a N.3 J 0 1

26-Nov-91 - STS-44 Pass

0 29-Nov-91 - STS-44 Pass -

0a 2-Dec-gi STS-44 Pass ... "V~ 0W 3-Dec-91 - It

o 4-Dec-91

(D 5-Dec-91

V 6-Dec-91 o

S7-Dec-91 -

8-Dec-91

o 9-Dec-91 (0C

7 0*10-Dec-91 - <(A

-4 U) -91-

S11-Dec-91 (A

i!12-Dec-91 C)

14-Dec-91

Good - - Relative Viewing Quality -> Poor

W z

W~ t2 OI "I - LOI Cot -T Lt CY I~ WI Ir (D:~

0: : n 104 1 N .-I- V 1

C") CD__I___ I ____CJ (0 l)I I a (mOU10i-CJlN o Y

60:(.

0~~~~1- 0) U) MLI~~ C, '

>i C

.. -1 .

01 CY) MHL MI CYI N~ L I Mlt LO I C41 041 lUW CtlUC; C31 :-

E.

E: V J -(01 o. Ii02 1 l ('71w C~ LO I Cy1 Coi LO; 07!W: 0 o M 0 ! VI 0 I0 [ f-cmi N0101010101010101c0101 r

r), in, qr Ito , - ~,- ,t.b. .- .

-,4 -In C I l U I COi U' -

U7 0)1 ) CY o;cl 0) 1 41 WI to I) vi I V )1 i wI <0.1 0)m N I

U1 LI.LL L C! Lo. ko: U. LO: Ln t ;.nL L. :t L O. I. L LU.. LL. U)

4. FLORIDA (CAPE CANAVERAL AFS):

o Threshold Brightness Value: 44.00

o Mean Brightness Value 40.00

o Standard Deviation of DailyMean Brightness Values 1.20

o Mean Minimum Brightness Value 34.33

STS-44 Mission Comparisons:

26 NOV 91 Overflight:Sample (AREA5021 - 26 NOV 1991/21:01GMT)

MEAN Brightness Value 41.35MIN Brightness Value 36.00STANDARD DEVIATION

CLASSIFICATION Poor ViewingConditions

* 30 NOV 91 Overflight:

Sample (AREA5022 - 30 NOV 1991/21:01GMT)MEAN Brightness Value 40.25MIN Brightness Value 36.00STANDARD DEVIATION

CLASSIFICATION MarginalViewingConditions

* 1 DEC 91 Overflight:

Sample (AREA5006 - 1 DEC 1991/21:01GMT)MEAN Brightness Value 40.14MIN Brightness Value 34.00STANDARD DEVIATION

CLASSIFICATION MarginalViewingConditions

Brightness Value - GOES Satellite

26-Nov-91 -STS-44 Pass - -

30-Nov-91 STS-44 Pass- -

0a 1-Dec-91 STS44 Pass--

M 02-Dec-91 -r

0 0

, 10-Dec-91 u -

S125-Dec-91 ca5

013-Dec-91 ,Vw14-Dec-91 =2)

15-Dec-91 - 0to 000

*10-Dec-91 0

11 - !1-9 - W

C rm 12-Dec-91 0WU

w 13-Dec-91

14-Dec -91 -

IS-Dec-9i

Good <- Relative Viewing Quality >-- Poor

* 0

'IT f -*, I (D I" N.1 C'.J 'I -1w,(nIT CY~i (in! Ln I i cc;

Ifl cot 41r co Io1 71--I !U)ID1CO I l -CJ - ,

v M D Q I M j MIc;(, ~ 4 I ln l

C1. CIg ~ CO' Is Vi I C~ l I q7, (M I Cl oI CV) I 01J I~ (MICO1 1

041 011I 2 \ I CY I CII Il (0 3 1 CV) i E

- I'

E,,

COJI C~J 13 01 M, -,~ Mi CV Mt -V) C".* C11CViM C~ e -. fCU ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n MI00001I11.OOOO

1q; I IV WI 1W CUI 01 WIv CU? V!00101w IV

II to II. m 1 C1M M o ý o !0

0'ý CD I z 0! 010 ; 01 0 I10101010101C3CVIA LO 111 141 14 -~ -1C~ -~ l- &M 1111 &n = i L

m t M, c O IO mI O sIOIOcc IOOIOctClm l 1:0 c cIOccLL , - ) 01. C-. I- M- 1- (311 UD . U) . U-1 (VI GLL UI U-.1)

CONCLUSION:

The initial findings of this study indicate that the atmosphere may havenegatively impacted most of the TerraScout/M88-1 targets during STS-44. Thesummary shows that 2.5 overflights were classified "poor', 8.0 "marginal", 0.5"good", and 0.0 "very good". The impact of atmospheric scattering effectivelyreduced the resolving power of the experiment based on these data alone.These results are based on a limited sample and more data points wouldincrease the reliability of the conclusions.

Additionally, these results imply that the target acquisition fromTerraScout/M88-1 may be improved by increasing the number payloadobservations over a greater time period thereby reducing the impact oftransitory atmospheric hazy events such as the situation during STS-44.

In conclusion, the results of this study appear to be valid as a cyclitoryimprovement and degradation of estimated viewing conditions occurred withthe same period as with the passage of macro-scale meteorological systems.Further testing and automation of the estimated viewing conditions should beinvestigated for application in the operational space environment.

" 7-711

David R. Helms, Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Companyfor Victor S. Whitehead, NASAERSAF, 'Johnson Space Center

APEflNDIX

Human Factors Data

1. Earth Observation Survey of U. S. Astronauts.

Astronauts may be broadly considered subject matter experts in general earthobservation from space, they are-not trained and should not be considered subjectmatter experts in ground site (target) analysis. Therefore, an important preliminary taskfor design of Terra Scout was elicitation and analysis of astronaut knowledge regardingearth observation from on-board a space vehicle. This task was accomplished by Dr.Beverly G. Knapp, U.S. Army Research Institute. Dr. Knapp's complete report is availablethrough the Fort Huachuca Field Unit, Army Research Institute, Fort Huachuca, AZ85613-7000, telephone (602) 538-4704, (DSN 879-4704). The following paragraphssummarize the report and comments from the Terra Scout experiment Team.

a. Survey Design (summarized).

A survey instrument was developed consisting of 5 knowledge categories based ona model of earth observation functions derived from recordings and comments ofshuttle astronauts. The model consists of a number of separate although relatedconsiderations proceeding from gross orientation to object tracking, as well asaccounting for the effects of factors which might impinge on observation (opticaldistortion, vibration, speed). Four functions comprise the model:

(1) Orientation to the geographical area (recognizing where you are, and whatstands out in a salient way).

(2) Recognition of specific features (rivers, irrigation patterns, coastlines, mountainranges) structures and objects (road nets, built up areas, etc.).

(3) Detailed recognition of specific features (erosion, silting, volcanic eruptions,bridges, vehicles).

(4) Tracking features, structures, or objects (following its course as viewingwindow and angle change).

The survey was developed using a checklist and rating approach to prompt for thetop three cues in each area, as well as a fifth multi-part item to determine the role offactors affecting the four visual observation functions of the model. A copy of thecomplete survey is at TAB A to this Appendix.

Twenty-two astronauts who had flown on one or more shuttle flights wereadministered the survey.

E- 1

b. Analysis and Results.

Each survey question for the four observation functions contained a checklist ofprompt items as well as an "other" category to determine the top 3 or 4 cues thatprovided the most useful information pertaining to the function. In some cases,respondents applied a 1 to 3 ranking for three items, others simply checked items theythought applied. Therefore, the top three items were determined using a "point index"

system, determined by combining the items most selected by one third or mor,-respondents, or top three selected) and the point value assigned (if checked only a "1"was assigned) and then divided by the total number selecting that item. Thus, thelowest point index would be obtained by an item being selected by many respondentsand also being assigned many "1" values; the lower the index the more salient the cue.

(1) Orientation. The top three cues that best oriented to an area of observationalinterest:

-Shuttle On-board Portable Computer (SPOC)(Index value=l.27; N=21)-Other (Index value=1.78; N=19)-Colors (Index value=2.27; N-I1)

Write-in ("other") items included large geographical formations (4), coastlines (8),sound regional knowledge, pre-orientation, pre-flight study (7), and specificgeographical features (2). Also, "major landmarks such as rivers, mountains", "colorintensity and colors play together", "texture of mountains and water allow depthperception", "deserts characterized by specific colors".

(2) Recognition. The three best cues were:

-Preferred pattern (river meanders, etc.) (Index=1.5: N=18)-Regular geometric shape (Index=1.8; N=10)-Colors (Index=2.25; N=12)

The "other" category received an index value of 1.0 since 7 respondents chose itwith a rank of 1 each. This is marginal since this is just less than one third of therespondents.

(3) Detailed Recognition. Features contributing to detailed recognition were

divided into natural and man-made categories.

Those that stood out for natural features:

-Lakes/seas (Index value=1.33; N=15)-Mountain ranges (Index value=1.5; N=14)-River patterns (Index value=1.55; N=9)-Storms (Index value 1.77; N=9)

E-2

Those that stood out for man-made features:

-Agriculture / irrigation patterns (Index value=1.15; N =20)-Built up area (Index value=1.73; Nl15)-Road network (Index value=2.54; N-1I)

(4) Tracking. This function elicited fewer responses on the formal checklist ofsuggested cues.

-River pattern (Index value=l.50; N=8)-Road net (Index value=2.6; N=5)

Voluminous comments indicated that specific cues are not as critical as theobserver being cued in advance to the upcoming target, and to be keenly trained sothat the reference objects will be familiar. Several individuals felt that SPOC was thebest cue since it can tell when and where you are, so that you are then able to usepredetermined reference objects made familiar to you by extensive pre-fight trainingand flight experience.E-l Some respondents felt tracking could not be done without theaid of a second crew member who could cue to the upcoming area or feature.

c. Summary.

Astronaut knowledge of earth observation has pointed out a number of salientcues related to specific functions of orientation, recognition, detailed recognition, andtracking from an orbiting platform. The extensive use of the "other" category during thesurvey indicates that further detailed interviewing is needed. It is clear from anastronauts point of view, and in the words of one astronaut, earth observation fromspace allows a "large, synoptic view, very quickly, which allows someone to quicklynotice elements that are unusual and worth closer attention"'E- 2. It is the pursuit offurther detail and specification of the nature of this viewing capability that follow onefforts need to address.

2. Evaluation of Payload Specialist Candidates for Terra Scout using PsychologicalIndicators.

The following is a reproduction of evaluations done by Dr. Beverly G. Knapp, ArmyResearch Institute for Behavioral Sciences.

E-1 This is one area the Terra Scout experiment team feels is not understood. Trained and experienced

imagery analysts have extensive abilities for locating, tracking, and analyzing ground observations.E-2 Again, this is from an astronaut perspective. Terra Scout offers the next logical step by placing arecognized expert in Earth ground site analysis from an overhead perspective, in an orbiting platform.

E-3

a. Introduction.

Candidates for payload specialist for USAICS project Terra Scout were evaluatedusing three psychometric instruments which, in combination, provide generalpersonality characteristics, ways of viewing the world and responding to situations, andgeneral anxiety and stability levels. All three individuals tested demonstratedindicators in the normal ranges with not evidence of unusual personality attributes orpathology.

b. Evaluation Instruments.

Anxiety level was measured using the Anxiety Scale Questionnaire (ASQ) (Krug,Scheier, and Cattell, 1976). The ASQ was developed following years of factor analyticresearch into personality traits by Cattell in order to derive clinically meaningful anxietyinformation in a rapid, objective, and standard manner. Output scores from the ASQare typically converted to normalized or sten scores which range from 1-10. This scorecan then be viewed in relation to general adult population norms. Generally a stenscore of 4,5,6, or 7 indicates an average level of anxiety. Scores or 1,2, or 3 are typicallyfound in unusually relaxed, secure, phlegmatic individuals. A score of 8 indicates aperson whose anxiety level would be getting serious, while stens of 9 or 10 are found inonly about I of 20 cases.

Emotional stability was measured using the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI)(Eysenck, 1960), which measures personality in terms of two pervasive, independentdimensions: extroversion-introversion and neuroticism-stability. Briefly, extroversionas opposed to introversion, refers to the outgoing, uninhibited, impulsive and sociableinclinations of a person. Neuroticism refers to the general emotional over-responsiveness and liability to neurotic breakdown under stress.

Perception, judgment and social inclinations were measured using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) (Myers and McCaully, 1985). The main objective of theMBTI is to identify four basic preferences on four independent scales, which then allowssixteen possible combinations called "types" denoted by the four letters of the scales:

EI: The Ei index is designed to reflect whether a person is an extrovert or anintrovert. Extroverts are oriented primarily toward the outer world; they tend to focustheir perception and judgment on people and objects. Introverts are oriented toward theinner world; they tend to focus their perceptions and judgment upon concepts andideas.

SN: The SN index is designed to reflect a person's preference between twoopposite ways of perceiving-one relies primarily upon the process of sensing whichreports observable facts or happenings through one or more of the five senses; the otherrelies more on the less obvious process of intuition which reports meanings,relationships, and possibilities that have been worked out beyond the reach of theconscious mind.

E-4

TF: The TF index is designed to reflect a person's preference between twocontrasting ways of judgment. One may rely primarily on thinking t, decideimpersonally on the basis or logical consequences, another may rely mostly on feehjnýto decide primarily on the basis of personal or social values.

JP: The JP index is designed to describe the process a person uses primarily indealing with the outer world; that is with the extroverted part of life. A person whoprefers judgment has reported a preference for using a judgment process (eitherthinking or feeling) for dealing whit the outer world. A person who prefers perceptionhas reported a preference for using a perceptive process (either sensing or intuiting) fordealing with the outer world.

c. Results of Testing.

Anxiety Scale Questionnaire

Candidate Sten Score Percentile1 3 112 In 403 3 11

Results: All three are low on anxiety with subjects one and three being unusuallyrelaxed, calm and secure, relative to a normal population. Subject two is within thenormal range, toward the low anxiety scale.

Eysenck Personality Inventory

Candidate Extroversion Neuroticism1 13 (62%tile) 6 (27%tile)2 14 (70%tile) 8 (41%tile)3 17 (91%tile) 0 (1%tile)

E-5

Figure E-1 Psychological Indicators

14 Neuroticism

13

1211

10Introversion Extroversion

99 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

8 127

6 W5

4

3

2I

0 Stability W

Results: All subjects tend to be stable. Subject three is extremely extroverted and stable.Subject one tends to be balanced between extroversion and introversion and very stable.Subject two is also more stable than the norm and has a tendency toward excroversion.

Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

Candidate Preferences1 INTJ2 ESTJ3 ENTJ

Each of the three candidates tested came out a different "type" although certain similarpreferences were reported. All three are "TJ" sometimes called "logical decision makers"characterized by use of the thinking-judgment functions, and are described as tough-minded, executive, analytical, and instrumental leaders. Reportings on the El and SNindices showed differences. Carndidates two and three are extroverted by differ insensing and intuition and candidates one and three are aligned in sensing and intuitionbut one is introvert and three is extrovert.

E-6

INTJ: Usually have original minds and great drive for their own ideas and purposes. Infields that appeal to them, they have a fine power to organize a job and carry it throughwith or without help. Skeptical, critical, independent, determined, sometimes stubborn.Must learn to yield less important points in order to win the most important.

ESTJ: Practical, realistic, matter-of-fact, with a natural head for business or mechanics.Not interested in subjects they see no use for, but can apply themselves when necessary.Like to organize and run activities. May make good administrators, especially if theyremember to consider others' feelings and points of view.

ENTJ: Hearty, frank, decisive, leaders in activities. Usually good in anything thatrequires reasoning and intelligent talk, such as public speaking. Are usually wellinformed and enjoy adding to their fund of knowledge. May sometimes appear morepositive and confident than their experience in an area warrants.

d. Discussion.

None of the candidates should be eliminated on the basis of the test data alone,due to the limitaticns of the test battery. The scores indicate that all individuals arestable and have low anxiety. This means that all are probably capable of dealing withstressful and challenging circumstances.

The slight differences in the scores on the three tests provides some informationusable for distinguishing between the three candidates. However, there are not testnorms for payload specialists, thus there is no way to know if the differences aremeaningful. The selection panel should consider the tests results in relation to the job tobe performed and the environmental and social context in which it will be carried out.This procedure could provide a realistic interpretation of the scores for consideration inselection.

3. STS-44 Crew Debriefing on Payload Operations.

A preliminary post flight debriefing with crew members was completed uponlanding. The portion of that debriefing concerning Terra Scout follows.

Q: What resolution did Tom 2 (PS1) and the crew believe was achieved (i.e., spatialresolution)?

A: NIIRS 3/25'

Q: What impact did current atmospheric conditions have on yourobservation /a, lalysis abilities?

A: Cloud covered and hazed over targets.

E-7

Q: What did color, sun glint, and time over target add to tour ability tolocate / identify objects?

A: Ability to (with more confidence) locate and identify the target and analyze as

much as resolution would allow.

Q: Could you ever detect object motion?

A: No. Could detect ship wakes (but not the ship) with binoculars.

Q: Do binoculars provide any additional advantages?

A: Two crewmember operations/excellent backup optical manual tracking device.

Q: Did you notice any physiological effects (visual or otherwise) which may haveimpacted your analyst skills?

A: None.

Q: Was SpaDVOS/FIGS training useful? What was most useful? What can beimproved?

A: Yes. Equipment familiarization and locating targets at orbital velocity. Usingactual planned targets or general areas.

Q: Did FIGS simulate what was observed in flight?

A: Fairly accurate, less the jitter caused by TAC tracking mechanism on orbit.

Q: Were the target folders effective?

A: Not as good as they could be. Better maps (color), larger overviews.

Q: We expected at least an order of magnitude better resolution through the eyepiecethan observed on the recorded acquisition. Was this valid?

A: Definitely.

Q: How much difficulty did the PS have acquiring Ad Hoc targets, and did headd/record targets we are not aware of?

A: None. No.

Q: Did PS1 perform non-military analysis (i.e., geological) with SpaDVOS?

A: Limited.

E-8

Q: How often did PS1/PLT/CDR use alternate optics? Which alternate optics wereused?

A: Virtually every target acquisition opportunity with both alternate optics.

Q: The Terra Scout PIs consider this a very successful experiment, despite the earlylanding. Is that your feeling also?

A: Yes.

E-9

APPENDIXF

Payload Specialist (PS) Selection andTraining of Experiment Personnel

1. Payload Specialist Selection.

a. In addition to astronaut criteria established and provided by NASA, personnelof USAIC&FH Space Division developed requirements of training and expertisebelieved necessary to successfully conduct Terra Scout. Also, candidates were requiredto have sufficient time remaining on their military commitment to complete Army andNASA post mission reporting, analysis and other follow-up actions. Basically, the onlyrequirement of NASA was that the Payload Specialist successfully pass an astronautphysical examination and interview. Information concerning forms and requirementsfor a NASA physical examination is not provided with this report but may be obtainedby requesting support through any military Flight Surgeon's office.

b. Specific selection criteria, including military background and imagery analysistraining and experience were developed by Space Division, USAIC&FH. The finalcandidates were interviewed by Space Division and given a test of their imageryanalysis skills to determine which would be the primary and back-up PayloadSpecialist. Finally, the candidates were given a psychological evaluation by the ArmyResearch Institute for Behavioral Science.

c. All candidates were school trained and qualified Imagery Analysts (IA)W. Thecurrent sixteen week training course for qualification as an IA at Skill Level I includesthe following:

(1) Imagery analysis organizations and equipment.(2) Document security.(3) Map reading.(4) Photogrammetry.(5) Imagery analysis procedures.(6) Imagery analysis reports.(7) Lines of communication analysis.(8) Identification of military equipment (U.S., NATO, and potentialadversaries).(9) Ground order of battle analysis.(10) Radar imagery analysis.(11) Infrared imagery analysis.(12) Low intensity conflict analysis.(13) Digital imagery analysis and exploitation.

F-1

d. A summary of qualifications of the final three Payload Specialist candidates is

as follows:

(1) CW3 Thomas Hennen: 18 years total imagery analysis experience. Unique

qualification and experience:

-tactical and national level exploitation-certified instructor-extensive research and development-USAICS Representative for imagery intelligence within the TacticalExploitation of National Capabilities (TENCAP) Program at the Army

Space Program Office.-college educated

(2) SFC Michael Belt: 15 years total imagery analysis experience. Unique

qualifications and experience:

-tactical and national level exploitation-certified instructor-500 flight hours as private fixed wing pilot-private business as aerial photographer-college educated

(3) CW3 John Hawker: 17 years total imagery analysis experience. Unique

qualifications and experience:

-tactical, strategic, and national level exploitation-6 1/2 years analysis with Domestic and Foreign Special OperationsForces-250 flight hours as military observer and photographer-128 flight hours in rotary wing aircraft-90 military parachute jumps (70 as primary jumpmaster)-extensive research and development-college educated

2. Training of Experiment Personnel.

a. Refresher/specific imagery training and target folder development were done

at Fort Huachuca, AZ. These activities were done, as time permitted, from mid-1988

until a few weeks prior to launch. A training plan was developed and used by the

experiment team but keeping rigidly to the planned time schedule proved impossible

due to shuttle mission slippages and rescheduling. The Department of Surveillance

Systems Maintenance (DSSM), USAICS, provided equipment, imagery and occasionally

instructional assistance for in-depth experiment. ?ecific training. This included current

doctrinal and tactical order of battle information on both US/NATO and non-NATO

F-2

observation sites. Most of the groundwork for target folder development wasaccomplished during this training phase, supported by DSSM as required.

The following figure is the training plan schedule used as a guide in preparationfor Terra Scout. Several listed activities were conducted for a longer period thanplanned to ensure proficiency would be maintained continuously until the actuallaunch (21 November 1991).

Figure F-i Training Plan Schedule

Subtask and/or CIN - Nanme Finish TobFebMar IAp~r IMay IJun I Jul LAti S.p Oct INov IDoc I Jan IFeb IMa, Apr M ayArrival at Ft. Huachuca 3,15/8g

Indoctrination 3/26/89

Imagery Analysis Review 4/25/89

Generic Space Training (GST) 1 5/5/89

GST2 617/89

GST3 8/1/189

Imagery SirmlatbonlTesting 1 5/1 6/agC

IS2 :6/14/89

IST 37/18

:S48/21/89 C

SpaD)VOS Training (WPAFS) 1 6/28/89

SpDVS m4 .9/28/89

Overflight Sim~.atbon ::10/13/89 _

Physical Tr'aining .9/26/89o4. . . . . . ............. . . . . . . . . .Shutie Crew Training (NASA) :5/10/90

Shuýtde Rlight Ready 5/10/J90

P-3

b. Flexible Image Generation System (FIGS) Training.

(1) Several training sessions were conducted on the FIGS simulation device atWright-Patterson AFB, beginning in September, 1989. FIGS replicates the operation of aspaceborne telescope system which is focused on terrestrial targets. Specifically, thesimulator teaches each candidate to search, acquire, track, and observe targets which arein range for approximately 70 seconds. The simulator shows examples of targets whichwill be used during Terra Scout. This simulator does not replicate a weightlessenvironment but is operated by means of the same type manual control as SpaDVOS.

-During the training and development process SpaDVOS was mounted in a NASALear jet where training and system tests were conducted in flight.

-A combined training and proof of concept demonstration flight was conducted onboard an Air Force KC 135 at Fort Irwin, California during ground force exercises there.Participants in this flight included one of the imagery analyst/payload specialistcandidates, one NASA astronaut, two Air Force/NASA flight engineers, an Air Force-Space Division/STP engineer, and two other Air Force observers/analysts. Trainingand lessons learned during the flight are as follows:

-In general, participants who were not trained analysts had more difficultyacquiring and tracking specified tactical-size ground targets than the analyst.

--Participants who were not intelligence trained could not report what theyobserved i.e., echelons, maneuver elements, style of attack ongoing, identity of forces(friendly vs. enemy, follow-on forces and militarily significant inconsistencies in theground force activities.

-Several training sessions and system tests were also completed with SpaDVOSmounted in an Air Force C-135 microgravity environment training aircraft. Eachsession was conducted while the aircraft flew approximately 20 successive archingparabolas where the trainees experience a microgravity environment for 20-25 secondsat a time.

(2) The first three sessions with FIGS were primarily for familiarization with theFIGS device, SpaDVOS flight hardware, and the 1-g mock-up of the aft flight deck of theshuttle. These sessions were also used to assist determination of the two candidates'ability to use the SpaDVOS in all aspects of acquisition, tracking and visual analysis oftarget sites.

F-4

(3) Following thorough training with the FIGS, and upon delivery of the firstSpaDVOS, several additional training sessions were completed in the NASA KC-133zero g simulator aircraft. These sessions were usually 21/2 to 3 hours in duration andconsisted of a flight profile where the aircraft performed approximately 50 r rabolas(zero/low g arcs), each of appro; .mately 20-30 seconds duration. The SpaD\ OS wasmounted on the floor of the aircraft where the candidates could perform simulatedearth observation using the actual SpaDVOS controls while in a weightlessenvironment.

4. The following is an outline of the Payload Specialist portion of training for TerraScout. The majority of this training is directed and conducted by NASA.

F-5

TERRA SCOUT - PS TRAINING PLAN 6/14/90

L=12 = -2 innnth

AO: THIS IS JSC Video 21 minutesA02: TOUR OF JSC BY PSO Tour 4 hoursA03: MCC OVERVIEW Video 45 minutesA04: MCC TOUR Tour 2 hoursA05: TECH LIB TOUR (optional) Tour 2 hoursA06: ELLINGTON OPS 1103 (opt) Video 24 minutesA07: ELLINGTON TOUR Tour 4 hoursA08: CST/SST TOUR Tour 1 hourA10: WETF TOUR Tour 2 hoursA12: MDF TOUR Tour 1 hourA13: CCT/FFT TOUR Tour 1 hourA14: SMS TOUR 1103 Video 18 minutesA15: SMS TOUR Tour 1 hourAIS: SES TOUR (optional) Tour 1 hourA17: SAIL TOUR (optional) Tour 1 hourOV-211/LSC PL BAY & AFT COMPT Video 15 minutesOV-289/LSC ORB CREW MODULE ACC Video 15 minutesQG-101/KSC FIRE PRO SAFETY Video 33 minutesQG-102/KSC TOXIC PROP SAFETY Video 36 minutesQG-150/KSC FLT VEH SAFETY Video 32 minutesQG-250/KSC HYPREGOL FIRE SUPP Video 20 minutesQF-39X/KSC SLF-OPF-Pad-RPSF

VAB-MLP FAM VideoQS-205/LSK HOW CLEAN IS CLEAN VideoQF-28X INDUSTRIAL AREA SAFETY

WALKIDOWN Video 34 minutesA33: NASA.. .THE 25TH YEAR (opt) Video 1 hourA34: LEGACY OF GEMINI (opt) Video 29 minutesA35: THE TIME OF APOLLO (opt) Video 29 minutesA36: FLIGHT OF APOLLO 11 (opt) Video 32.minutesA37: APOLLO XIII (opt) Video 28 minutesA38: SPACE SHUTTLE (optional) Video 31 minutesA44: CAIT/REGENCY FAM 1101 Briefing 1 hourC01: VOICE COMM TR 1103 Video 24 minutesC03: FRONTLINE 1103 Video 1 hourC04: FLT OV 1103 Video 1 hourC05: FLT OV 1203 Video 1 hourC06: FLT OV 1303 Video 1 hourCOB: KSC TURN OPS 1103 Video 15 minutesCl1: ENVIRON PAM & PHYSIO TRNG Chamber 8 hoursC23: EXTRACTION AND SURVIVAL - WATER SURVIVAL TRAINING 24 hoursS01: SPACE SHUTTLE FAM 1107 Text 4 hoursS23: FDF 2101 Workbook 4 hoursS25: DPS OV 2102 Workbook 4 hoursS26: CSI 2102 Workbook 3 hoursS27: CSI 2105 CST I hourS28: DPS HW/SW 2102 (optional) Workbook 10 hoursS29: GNC OV 2102 (optional) Workbook 2 hoursS30: GNC HS OV 2102 (optional) Workbook 6 hours

1.

S31: C&W 2164 Regency 2 hoursS32: C&W 2102 Workbook 3 hoursS33: SM TM 2102 Workbook 3 hoursS34: DPS 2105 CST 2 hoursS35: C&W OPS 2104 SST 1 hourS65: SPOC 2102 Workbook 2 hoursS66: SPOC FPH 2107 (optional) Text 1 hourS70: CCTV OPS 2102A Workbook 1 hour

L_- L-Z Months

A31: PHOTOS AND BIOGRAPHY 8 hoursA32: PRESS & PAO ACTIVITY 16 hoursC24: IN/EG 2102A Workbook 2 hours

A40: STS PRESS INFO (optional) Text 2 hoursSECTION ON SRB, ET

S04: LOC CODE 2102 Workbook 2 hoursS05: LIGHTING 2102 Workbook 2 hoursS06: CREW SYS EQ 2102 Workbook 2 hoursS07: CS OV 1103 Video 1 hourSO8: C STA DSN 1103 . Video 2 hoursS10: WCS 2102C Workbook 2 hours511: FOOD SYS 2102B Workbook 1 hourS14: MED EQ 2102 (optional) Workbook 2 hoursS15: CREW CABIN FAM 2120 CCT 2 hours*Replace with "Living & Working in Space" video"L-5 mohn

A28: MED PHYSIOLOGICAL BRF Briefing 4 hoursA29: CLOTHING FIT 4 hoursA30: FOOD SAMPLING 1 hourA41: MOD ORIENTATION MANUAL (opt) Text 8 hoursA42: MOD TRAINING DIV OV 2107 Text 4 hoursA45: FCOD ORIENTATION Briefing 4 hoursA46: ROLMPHONE 1103 (optional) Video 22 minutesC37: ADV ORBIT SKILLS 3112 SMS 2 hoursS12: WCS 2164 Regency 2 hoursSd1: HAB EQ/PROC 2120 CCT 4 hoursS23: FDF 2102 Workbook 4 hoursS24: FDF 2120 CCT 1 hourS36: EPS 2102 Workbook 4 hoursS37: EPS 2164 (optional) Regency 2 hoursS38: ECLSS 2102 Workbook 3 hoursS41: ECLSS 2164 (optional) Regency 2 hoursS42: MECH SYS 2102 (optional) Workbook 4 hoursS43: MECH OV 1103 Video 1 hourS44: COM/IN INTRO 2102 Workbook 2 hoursS45: COMM OV 2164 Regency 2 hoursS46: COMM/IN 2102 Workbook 6 hoursS47: COM/IN OPS 2106A SST 2 hoursS48: AUDIO 2106 SST 1 hour

2

S49: AUDIO 2120 CCT 2 hours

S50: MPS 2102 (optional) Workbook 4 hours

S51: MPS 2164 (optional) Regency 1 hour

S64: ORB MEC 2164 (optional) Regency 2 hours

S69: ASC/ABORTS FPH 2107 (opt) Handbook 8 hours

S73: BASIC PHOTO 2101 Briefing 2 hours

S74: PHO 35 EQ 2102 Workbook 1 hour

S75: PHO 35 EQ 2101 Briefing 2 hours

S76: PHO 70 EQ 2102 Workbook 1 hour

S77: PHO 70 EQ 2101 Briefing 2 hours

C12: ENVR FAM 1152 T-38 8 hours

C13: ENVR FAM 1153 KC-135 8 hours

C23: EXTRACTION AND SURVIVAL -

BAILOUT 2102 Workbook 1 hour

BAILOUT INTR 2101 Briefing 1 hour

C25: PI/PO PREP 3120 CCT 4+4 hours (+dry run)

S16: HAB EQ/PROC 2120 CCT 4 hours

S67: SPOC 2101 (opt) Briefing 2 hours

S68: TELEPRINTER 2162 (opt) Loose Eq 1 hour

S81: PHO OVERVIEW 2101 Briefing 3 hours

S82: PHO TECH 1 2101 Briefing 2 hours

S83: PHO TECH 2 2101 Briefing 1 hour

S84: PHOTO SKILLS 3162 Loose Eq 4 hours

T months

C23: EXTRACTION AND SURVIVAL -

BAILOUT 3120 CCT 3+3 hours (+dry run)

S12: WCS 2164 Regency 2 hours

S13: WCS PROC 2165 WCS trainer 2 hours

S21: IFM 2101 (optional) Briefing 3 hours

S22: IFM PIN KIT 2101 (opt) Briefing 1 hour

L--A monthz

A30: FOOD SAMPLING 1 hour

C18: MISSION RULES REVIEW Meeting 4 hours

C20: FIREFIGHTING Exercise 3.5 hours

C37: ADV ORBIT SKILLS 3112 SMS 4 hours

C40: TIMELINE REVIEW 3101 Meeting 1 hour

(with the Commander)

S18: FIRST AID 2101 Instruction 1 hour

S19: MED CPR 2101 Instruction 3 hours

-L=1Z woekm

S13: WCS PROC 2165 WCS trainer 2 hours

3

C45: FLIGHT OPS REVIEW BOARD Meeting 8 hours (+2 days)

(splinter meetings in days preceeding)

L_- weeks

C35: SMS ASCENT SKILLS SMS 2 hours

A30: FOOD SAMPLING 1 hourC23: EXTRACTION AND SURVIVAL -

BAILOUT 3127 WETF 3 hours (dry run)C26: ASC/CAP/DES 3120 CCT 8 hours

(with crew)C40: TIMELINE REVIEW 3101 Meeting 1 hour

(with the Commander)C46: BENCH REVIEW Meeting 4 hours

L=Z weake

C23: EXTRACTION AND SURVIVAL -

BAILOUT 3127 WETF 3 hoursC27: PLD EG 3119 FFT 4 hours (dry run)C28: PRL IN/EG 3120 CCT 3 hours (dry run)C32: ASCENT BRF Briefing 2 hoursC33: ASCENT ABORT BRF Briefing 2 hoursC35: SMS ASCENT SKILLS SMS 2 hoursC38: PO INS 9112 (+ briefing) SMS 6 hoursC39: INTEGRATED ORBIT SIMS

D/O PREP 9142 SIA'S 7 hours

L weeks

C27: PLD EG 3119 FFT 4 hoursC28: PRL IN/EG 3120 CCT 3 hoursC34: ENTRY BRF Briefing 2 hoursS13: WCS PROC 2165 WCS trainer 2 hours

L-5 weeks

C36: SMS ENTRY SKILLS SMS 2 hoursCEIT KSC 8 hours

I-A weeks

A32: PRESS & PAO ACTIVITY 4 hours(L-30 days press conference)

C23: EXTRACTION AND SURVIVAL -BAILOUT 3220 CCT 3 hours

week's

A33: PRESS & PAO ACTIVITY 16 hours(TV Strategy meeting)

4

L=2 weekR

C40: TIMELINE REVIEW 3101 Meeting 1 hour(with the Commander)

S20: MED PROC 3101 Briefing 3 hours(L-10 day physical included)

C41: TCDT (VITT BRF) Briefing 30 hours(3 days tied up)

L=1 week

C36: SMS ENTRY SKILLS SMS 1 hourC38: PO INS 9212 SMS 4 hoursC42: FINAL SAFETY BRF Briefing 1 hourC43: FLT DIR/CAP COM MTG Meeting 2 hours

Am they ocu: Optional

C14: ASCENT FLT TECHNIQUES Meetings 4 hoursC15: ORBIT FLT TECHNIQUES Meetings 16 hoursC16: ENTRY FLT TECHNIQUES Meetings 4 hoursC17: POWG Meeting 16 hoursC21: PAYLOAD SAFETY REVIEW Meetings 40 hoursC29: MCC MONITOR - ASCENT MCC 8 hoursC30: MCC MONITOR - ORBIT MCC 24 hoursC31: MCC MONITOR - ENTRY MCC 8 hours

5

APPEKNDIX G

Project History

1. General.

a. Terra Scout represents several "firsts" for the Army. These include:

(1). The first military-man-in-space experiment attempted by the Army.

(2). The first shuttle mission ever with a military crewmnember who was not asenior officer/engineer.

(3). The first Warrant Officer ever to go to space.

(4). The first experiment based on determining military requirements satisfactionby a subject matter expert.

b. This Appendix is intended to provide a summary of the SpaceTransportation/Military-Man-in-Space Programs from the perspective of the TerraScout Experiment team, and to show a brief chronology of events from initial concept tolaunch of Terra Scout.

2. Project History.

a. Terra Scout was conceived in 1985 during discussions between BG Bob Stewart,senior Army astronaut, MG Julius Parker, Commanding General of USAICS, LTC PaulGroskopf and CPT Dave Bales of Space Division, Directorate of Combat Developments,USAICS. BG Stewart described watching dust trails of what he though were armoredforces moving through the desert in the Middle East. Use of binoculars did not provideenough magnification for confirmation. After the mission BG Stewart discovered thatthere were movements of large forces at the time and place in question. Because of thisexperience he believed a trained analyst aboard the shuttle might be able to deriveuseful information using optical equipment intended for that purpose. Coincidentally,the Secretary of the Air Force had recently circulated a memorandum to all servicessoliciting proposals for military-man-in-space experiments. Space Division, USAICS,was tasked to develop and submit an experiment proposal. Mr. Gerald Ramage andWO1 Dave Cole spent several months gathering technical and background informationand, since this was nev, to the Army, CPT Bales determined the format, method, andchain of submission for approval. The final experiment proposal was written under SCIcontrols and hand carried to General Richardson, CG TRADOC, for signature andformal Army submission to DOD and NASA.

G-1

b. Support from the Army Chain of Command began with Major General JuliusParker, Commandant of the U. S. Army Intelligence Center and School (USAICS).Beyond USAICS, support from senior Army leadership was provided initially byGeneral Thurman, Army Vice Chief of Staff (VCSA), General Richard'son,Commanding General of TRADOC, and LTG Weinstein, Army Deputy Chief of Staff forIntelligence (DCSINT). From 1986 until late in 1988 Terra Scout was not wellunderstood by the majority of Army leadership. It remained at a low level ofdevelopment and a low priority for funding and manpower. Resources for the projectwere not authorized or provided and work was accomplished by USAICS primarily"out of hide".

c. The experiment was briefed before the first STP/MMIS Review andPrioritization Board and all subsequent Boards until launch. It was always placedamong the top few out of all experiments submitted. Resources and support fromArmy leadership increased after Terra Scout received these high ratings from the firstthree annual Tri-Service Review and Prioritization Boards.

d. The SpaDVOS was already a high priority for flight on the shuttle but Dr. Taskcould .iot get enough support (funds) from the Air Force or NASA to build the system.Terra Scout provided a well defincd plan, with minimal funding from TRADOC, but noengineering support (contract or military). After the first DOD Prioritization Board, Dr.Task agreed to support Terra Scout during subsequent Boards and other prioritizationand approval processes. Eventually TRADOC provided funds to start building twosystems.

e. Initially, the United States Army Topographic Engineering Center (USATEC),formerly Engineering Topographic Laboratory (USAETL) agreed to provideengineering support in developing the SpaDVOS and was given $1 15k by USAIC&FH,Due to internal problems at ETL, they withdrew their agreement to provide dedicatedengineering support but agreed to assist development in an advisory capacity for thefunds provicled.

f. Additional funds were provided by the Army through the Concept EvaluationPlan (CEP) Systems Acquisition Review Council (SARC). Using these funds, Dr. Taskestablished an agreement with Dayton University to build two systems. Captain JimWhitely (USAF) of Dr. Task's division was designated the principal representative andaction officer developing SpaDVOS. Today, AAMRL and USAIC&FH maintain anexceptional working relationship. The Terra Scout-SpaDVOS team providedsignificant advantages during developmental stages of both experiments.

3. Terra Scout Sequence of Key Events.

The sequence of events cannot include every step and accomplishment of theexperiment team during the seven year effort to get Terra Scout on the Shuttle. It isprovided to show the nature of effort required, ani reveals the fact that the majority ofeffort is administrative and political-not technically oriented,

G-2

Jan 1986 Senior Army astronaut, BG (then COL) Bob Stewart visits USAICS asrequested by Space Division to brief MI Officers Basic and AdvancedCourse classes and hold discussions about Space Division's idea for ashuttle experiment involving a trained imagery analyst.

Feb 1986 Concept briefing on space shuttle experiment to LTG Weinstein,DCSINT.First USAICS Working Group meeting.

Jun 1986 Space Division, USAICS formal submission to HQ TRADOC of TerraScout as Army's first space shuttle experiment.Resume sheet to Test and Evaluation Division, DCD, USAICS fc-Concept Evaluation Program funds.Initial briefing to U. S. Army Intelligence and Security Command(INSCOM).

Jul 1986 Initial briefing to Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).Aug 1986 Experiment proposal approved by Secretary of the Army for Research

and Development (SARDA). Forwarded to USAF Space Division fortechnical review, and SPACECOM for operational review.Briefed General Vuono, VCSA.Briefed LTG Bartlett, Commander, Combined Arms Center and DeputyCommander, TRADOC.Copy of experiment hand carried to Defense Advanced Reseat -" ProjectsAgency (DARPA).

Oct 1986 Briefing to USSPACECOM.Dec 1986 Briefing to Space Division, USAF.Jan 1987 Briefing to representatives of U. S. Army Space Office (USASO),

DCSINT, TRADOC, DCSRDA, Secretary of the Air Force-DefenseSupport Program Office (DSPO), Army Space Program Office (ASPO).

Mar 1987 Briefing to DSPO.Briefing to DCSINT, and DCSOPS, USA.Army STP Prioritizatlon Board (first held).Brief USAF Human Systems Division.Joint Military Man in Space Review and Prioritization Board. (TerraScout #4, SpaDVOS #1) Agreement between AMRL and USAICS todiscuss teaming.Briefing to several space system contractors for technical support(Boeing, E-Systems, Aerospace, etc.).

Mar 1987 Brief and coordinate experiment with Space Test Program Office, TechSupport.

Apr 1987 First meeting with Dr. Task, AAMRL concerning integrating Terra Scoutand Space-borne Direct View Optical System (SpaDVOS).

Apr-May 87 First integration meeting with JSC, Det 2, USAF SD.May 1987 Brief USAF Det 2, JSC.Jun 1987 Army Development and Employment Agency (ADEA) offers $244K

(never received) for Terra Scout.

G-3

Begin development of experiment issues and criteria and tasks and skillsanalysis by New Systems Training Office, Department of Training andDoctrine, USAICS.Requested support from U. S. Army Engineering TopographicEngineering Labs (USAETL, now USATEC). Working group meeting toestablish a Memorandum of Agreement.

Jul 1987 Space Experiment Working Group meeting at USAICS: DOTD, DCD,DSSM, OCMI, RMO, Scientific Advisor.

Sep 1987 Briefing to Honorable John 0. Marsh, Secretary of the Army.Nov 1987 Message from MG Parker to MI Branch directing records search of IAs

for Payload Specialist candidates.Mar 1988 U.S. Army Prioritization Board, 1988. Ranked number one.

MMIS Prioritization Board, 1988. Ranked number four.Oct 1988 Space Flight Medical Board certifies three PS candidates.

SFC Belt flew in KC-135 over Fort Irwin, CA for experience on targetapproaches.

Dec 1988 Johnson Space Center Payload Integration Plan Draft completed.Formal (ARI) survey of astronauts on their Earth observations duringpast missions.Payload Integration Plan (PIP) draft

Feb 1989 Terra Scout (1628) briefed to NASA Scientific Support Group.

SpaDVOS program review.Mar 1989 Training simulation imagery from DIA.

Two IA/PS's assigned to Fort Huachuca, AZ.U.S. Army Prioritization Board, 1989.

Apr 1989 SpaDVOS briefed to MMIS Prioritization Board.Jun 1989 Payload Integration Plan completed by Johnson Space Center.Sep 1989 SpaDVOS training begins at Wright-Patterson/Dayton, OH.Dec 1989 T-38 simulator training.

SpaDVOS flight on STS-38; proof of concept as Terra Scout missionequipment.

Jun 1990 Terra Scout manifested for STS-44.Oct 1990 PS's move (TDY) to Johnson Space Center for training.

PS mission integration training.PS Astronaut trainingDIA completed/shipped mission imagery packets

Nov 1990 SpaDVOS flew on STS-38 for data collection & characterization

Nov 1991 Launch of STS-44.

G-4

4. Space Test Program/Military Man in Space (STP/MMIS).

a. The Space Test Program (STP) is a Department of Defense (DoD) activityestablished to provide space-flight opportunities for DoD research and development(R&D) experiments. The Military Man in Space (MMIS) program is a component of theSTP, intended to determine military applications of man's unique powers of observationand decision making in space. The STP/MMIS programs are described in ArmyRegulation 70-43/Air Force Regulation 80-2/Navy OPNAVINST 3913.1. Theseprograms provide launch services for the Army space community at no cost toexperimenters. The experimenter, of course, is responsible for developing and fundingthe experiment hardware.

In support of this program, HQDA will convene Army STP/MMIS ExperimentReview Boards on a periodic (usually annual) basis to review and evaluate all Armyrequests for space-flight and to establish a priority list for Army space experiments. TheArmy Board is normally held approximately 60 days prior to the Tri-Service/JointBoard The Boards are usually held in the Washington, D.C. area, currently at AnalyticServices Incorporated (ANSER), Crystal Gateway #3, Suite 800, 1215 Jefferson DavisHighway, Arlington, VA 22202. Sponsors/researchers who have experiments thatrequire a space environment are strongly encouraged to submit their experiments forvalidation and prioritization to this Board. Experiments that receive a priority from theBoard but are not manifested for flight prior to the next Board must compete again forprioritization at the following Board. Experiments selected by the Army Review Boardare submitted to the Tri-Service STP/MMIS Experiment Review Board to compete withthe other services for prioritization.

The STP/MMIS process has been streamlined into only two categories for allexperiments: Free Flyer/Shuttle Bay (usually not requiring an astronaut) andMMIS/Middeck Locker (usually requiring an astronaut). The rating criteria will be thesame for both categories and will include military relevance, quality of experiment,readiness for flight, and support and funding. All MMIS experiments must defend"mans utility" as part of the military relevance criterion. Proposed experiments,including those submitted in previous years but not manifested, must be submitted onDD Form 1721 and 1721-1 dated August 1990. A copy of these forms is included in thisAppendix. Completed forms should be mailed to HQDA, SARD-TS, 3E474, thePentagon, Washington, D.C. 20310-0103 and must be received approximately fourweeks prior to the Board. Normal briefing requirements for the Board are inclu" A1 atthe end of this Appendix.

Administrative instructions and meeting agenda are provided to experimentsponsors two to three weeks prior to the Board. SECRET level clearances are required.Questions concerning the Army STP/MMIS Experiment Review Board should bedirected to Mr. Russ Edwards, (703) 695-1447 or DSN 225-1447. The Point of Contact(POC) for STP is SARD-TS; POC for MMIS is DAMO-SWX, (703) 695-0129 or DSN 225-0129.

G-5

b. Experiment sponsors are asked to make brief presentations at all ExperimentReview/Prioritization Board meetings (Army and Joint/DoD). It is intended that thesepresentations be limited to 10 minutes and use only three vu-graphs. Standardizedcharts for these meetings are as follows:

Chart I

Identification - Experiment Title and Number

Title - Concept

Content - Chart 1 is to contain statements about the experiment objective anddescription, give detailed values of performance parameters or- measurementsaccuracies. Give sensor specifications. Compare performance to specific needs. Includea descriptive picture of the experiment, preferable in color, this chart is to provide theviewer with an understanding of what the experiment is and will do.

Chart 2Identification - Experiment short Title and Number

Title - Justification

Content - Chart 2 is to present the justification for experiment space-flight. The threesections are to contain the following information: 1) the military relevance of theexperiment, 2) a comparison of alternatives both inside and outside DOD, and 3) thedetailed need for space test as opposed to ground test or previous space-flightexperience. This chart explains why the experiment is important.

Chart 3

Identification - Experiment Short Title and Number

Title - Detailed Overview

Content - Chart 3 is a detailed overview of the experiment. Specifics on the experimentshould be listed here under flight data such as: sortie or free flyer, type mission(secondary or primary), size, weight, availability constraints, ti;e need formission/payload specialist support. The experiment's priority must be stated asdetermined within its sponsoring agency or service. To be included is the rationale forthis priority whether high or low. The status of the experiment must be identified bysuch factors as hardware readiness, funding, and production and delivery estimates.

5. NASA Documentation:

a. Payload Integration Plan (PIP) and Interface Control Document (ICD).

G-6

(1) The Payload Integration Plan (PIP) is a package of documentation instandardized National Space Transportation System (NSTS) format and is required forall payloads to be flown on the space shuttle. e PIP (NSTS 21147) represents thepayload to Space Shuttle Program (SSP) agreement on the responsibilities and taskswhich directly relate to the integration of the payload into the Space Shuttle, includingthe definitions of tasks which the SSP considers optional services.

-The following Orbiter accessories were provided by the SSP for Payload use on ashared basis:

Standard 35mm flight camera systemLens/window cleaning kit

CCTV systemVTR systemmicrocassette recordervery lightweight headsetlightshade assemblevoice microcassettes28vdc power cables35mm film cassettes35mm film containers

-Applicable annexes to the PIP are as follows:

Annex 1-Payload Data PackageAnnex 2-Flight PlanningAnnex 3-Flight Operations SupportAnnex 4-Orbiter Command and DataAnnex 5-Payload Operations Control CenterAnnex 6-Orbiter Crew CompartmentAnnex 7-TrainingAnnex 8-Launch Site Support PlanAnnex 9-Payload Verification RequirementsAnnex 10-Intravehicular Activities (IVA)Annex 11-Extravehicular Activities (EVA)

(2) The Interface Control Document (ICD) defines and controls the design ofinterfaces between the Shuttle Orbiter and the experiment payload. The interfaces aredefined by direct reference to the corresponding sections and subsections of Part I ofthe standard the ICD. Unique and specific information related to an experimentpayload are primarily described in subsequent sections of the ICD. In the event ofconflict between Part I and subsequent unique, experiment specific data, the uniquepart of the ICD will take precedence.

(3) Relationship of ICD to PIP.

G-7

The ICD provides specific design data and defines engineering analysis applicable

to the Orbiter/Payload interfaces and optional services identified in the PIP.

b. Flight Plan. (JSC-48000-44)

The STS Flight Plan is prepared by NASA and contains the on-orbit timeline. It isunder configuration control of the Crew Procedures Control Board (CPCB) and theresponsibility of the Mission Operations Directorate, Operations Division, NASA, JSC.The plan does not contain the detailed timelines that are covered in individualchecklists for Ascent, Post Insertion, De-orbit Prep, and Entry Checklists, or detaileddeploy procedures included in the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) Deploy Checklist.However, the Flight Plan includes the entire flight and is illustrated as a timeline graph.The flight plan is considered a "living" document and is modified as necessarythroughout the mission until the orbiter lands.

This on-orbit timeline displays times required and available for all actions by allcrewmembers during a mission and satisfies NASA objectives specified in the FlightDefinition and Requirements Directive and the requirements of the STS-44 FlightRequirements Document.

The flight profile used for the STS-44 Flight Plan was for a launch date ofNovember 19, 1991, at 17:51 CST. Timeline formats used in the STS-44 Flight Plan arebased on JSC-1 9933, Timeline Format Definitions and Standard Notes, Revision C, May1990.

c. Attachments:

(1) Generic Middeck Payload Integration Schedule and Activities.

(2) Shuttle Capabilities and Payload Integration Briefing.

G-8

0 1

%DI

0

'-414

-4t

-44I

II I

z i~I Z_____4____

24 OCTOBER 1989

TYPICAL DOD SECONDARY MISSION INTEGRATION ACTIVITIES

TRI-SERVICE BOARD L-24 MONTHS.

FORM 1721 SUBMITTEL 1.24 MONT1IS-

MOA DRAFT L-24-19 MONHIS

INITIAL EXPERLMIENT TIM L-24.18 MONTHS

MOA APPROVAL L-24-18 MONTHS

FINAL EID DEV1lW'ME\T" L-24-IS MONTHS

DRAFT ARAR L.24-18 MONTH11S

FORM 1623 SUBMITTEL L-24-19 MONTHS

DRAFT PAYLOAD LVIIZGRATION PLAN L-I 18MONTHS

INF-AaG;CONTROL DOC,_NTSL.UTITW LA-I SMON'THS

P1IOTUITYPE I1ARDWARETO ISC L- 18 MONTHS

PHASE 01l SAFETY REVIEW L-1l-14 MONTHS

ICD SIGNATURES L, 12 MONTHS

PIP INTRODUCTION MEETMNG L-18 MONTHS

SECONDARY PAYLOAD POWG'$ L-18-6 MO NTIIS

SECONDARY PAYLOADGOWGs L-18-6 MONTHS

PIP ANNEXES SUBMITTAL L. 16 MONTIIS

PIP SIGNATURES L, 12I MONTHS

PIP ANN'DCE-S SIGNATURES L- 12MONTHS

CARGO INThEGRATION REVIEW L,-12i MONTHS

MOD PRE-FPSR ASSESSMENT POWG L-12.10 MONTHS

FLIGHT PLANNING & STOWAGE REVIEW L-12-9 MONTHS

EX(POU'ILTTIs L-12-9 MONTIIS

CREW FAMILIARIZATION BRIEFLNGS L-9 & 6 MONTHS

CREW TRAINING BEGINS L-9 MONTHS

PHASE 2/3 SAFETY REVIEW L.12-7 MONTHS

REVIEW BASIC FLIGHT PLAN L6 MON"HS

REVIEW BASIC PL OPS CHECKLIST L,6 MONTHS

REVIEW BASIC PHOTOI'V CHECKLIST L,6 MONTHS

REVIEW FOR DATA PACKJWARE FOR DN's L4 MONT'HS

SAFETY CRMTIFCATION LETTE FROM SSDC..F L,3 MONTHIS

CE'T REQU71REN"TS TO NASA L-3 MONTHS

SlIMULATIONS BEGIN L-3 MONTHS

24 OCTOBER 1989

FLIGHT OPERATIONS REVIEW L-3 MONTHS

. FOR DN's due FOR-2 weeks

. Prepare/Submit 482's Post-FOR

REVIEW FINAL FLIGHT PLAN WmT FAQ L, MO2 ,,IN'iIS

REVIEW FINAL PL OPS CHECIKLIST L.2 MOTmHS

REVIEW FINAL PHOTO/TV CHECKLIST L,-2 MONTHS

CREW EQUIPMEN-r LNTERFACE TEST L.2 MONTHS

- CEIT Hardware clew, bag and tag CEIT-9 days

- CEIT Hardware to Boeing FEPC CEIT-7 days

COFR's DUE TO NASA L-2 MONTHS

ROLLOLT REVIEW L-2 MONTHS

L-5 DAY LAUNCH SITE COORDINATION EMTINGS LI MONTH

L-5 DAY LAUNCH SITE DRY RUN LAI MONTH

LANDING SITE COORDINATION MEETINGS L- I MONTH

LANDING SITE DRY RUN L, 1MONTH

PERSONN7ELLIST)SECURrfY CLEARANCES SENr TO LANDING SITE L 1MONTH

BENCH REVIEW L-l MONTH

- Flight Hardware clean, bag and tag BR-7 days

- Flight llardware to Boeing FEPC BR-5 days

CAPCOM DOD MIDDECK BRIEING LI MONTH

EST REVIEW WITH P&L AND FAO -I MONTrH

SPOMTEAM COORDINATION METING L MONTH

FLIGHT READINESS REVIEW L-14 DAYS

LAUNCH READINESS REVIEW L-10 DAYS

L-5 DAY LAUNCH SITE SECONDARY PAYLOAD ACTIVrITY L-5 DAYS

L-5 DAY LOCKER STOWAGE L-5 DAY

LOCKER SHIPTO VAB L-3 DAY

L-2 DAY MANAG-MENT REVIEW L-2 DAYS

L- I DAY PAYLOAD STATUS REVIEW L-I DAY

LAUNCH

MISSION SUPPORT LAUNCH+

DAILY SPSR REPORT ON SECONDARY PAYLOAD ACTIVITY

LANDING

POSTLfANDlNG SECONDARY PAYLOAD ACTI VT'Y L.ANDD;G-

Pi CREW QUEsTIONS DUE TOSPOM LANDING I DAY

POST MISSION

QUICK LOOK REPORT LANDING - I WEEK

SECONDARY PAYLOAD CREW DEBRIEF LANDING +2 WEEKS

24 OCTOBa 1909

POST MISSION REPORT LANDlNG 30 DAYS

POSTWMSSION DATA cou.LECfoN/A.NALYS ES/REPORT

FLIGHT IhARDWARE RFI1JRN To JSC AND/OR Pf

J.S. Gov t

CNONN

p8

ON

00

SM"

Iona

¢1Q

Q

S;>,,

€.0

U.S. Gov t

..• 04

Za

U.S. Gov

g

6�

Cu

0� .� 0

Cui,�

-3:- 4�

Q 4)-� � C.)

� Cu � 4)

r-�j p� Cu

0. *� L(� a�PE��- � � el � e� �

Cu

0

I-

-"

-� 3.. Q 0 Cu4) 3-.

OS 4)0 � 0 �

� Cu '� 4) "0 *� �-. "0 *. Cu � 0

�.� � ..

- 0� �

� oO�NWW

�4)z��C.)

� Cu ��w0i �

U.S. Govt

00

*Pao X-''~,. -

-J PL

U.S. Gov

0 P00

pow

70

U.S. Govy

o 00

o 01

16-

U.S. Gov

•- ONzp

.• J O0 o,,

Q'

E s u~cc Poo ia-

'U•C6) _ r.

C6 ~

~ ~ PC

00z W 00

0..

U.S. Gov t

0~ SPC

00pr C'0

,~42,

00

Cuz

0 U)W '

Cu ~'O~*Poo

LW 42

-.. 0

~8 .

U.S. Govy

0

00

PNO)

P2C

P.0PC CMONO

Lcu

"PC 00 Ca

0 03

LLu

. 00 0'g*

U.S. Govy

Io

*0

000

U- 0

LaLi00~ W .0

W , r , -*,a

Cc0

U.S. Gov

€0a0

Now"

0*00

0 -

;0-

0-

0 •

000j. 0CUn

.4. 0I

*Z C U

k" ~d

U.S. Govt

m. >

F--

0n cn U)

0 E

(DZW

(U a:

0U~(UW z 0L -

C5 - 7

U.S. Gov

o -p

00

0.

020

PCU

PC 0

op PCCU

CL CU PC

00

CA 0

U.S. Gov t

oO* =I

Lw PC

Lu-"Ctu C%

0 ,p0

0O w

;A. u 0 zu

PC C

00 cm~~

W- 0000 0ENOZ 0 00

= W r II

S S

~O

*CP"

U.S. Govt

cn In

* "

aNr

'0a4 <2 Q

0 pw0

Cuu

ob

V~ <

V) 00

U.S. Gov t

P-4

900)

1C-4

r- C-4 _

F-j

U.S. Gov t

P00

2S

40

cCOW

I. ' .• i •

U rA

CA 0 Po

0 0 c

_ P Q_=,i.. 0 .=4 9-

W .

U.S. Gov t

404~

-l z

.C.cc~

cn M

000

C.) CA.

00C3.U. -=- V t

U.S. Gov

V A w

a 0o

0C

owu

Z oO

U.S. Govy

-"W

PON 5-im

OWN W

0~NNW

*o -

OWNC po

4)=

W P i c

*4)

40

0000

and so forth. Many PIs were making assumptionsNew 1721 Forms about the availability of ground station contacts in

calculating these quantities and STP was unsureBoth of the forms have been updated to reflect the what assumptions they were making.current STP flight modes. References to obsolete Items describing the program funding weremodes (e.g., LDEF) were deleted, and new changed to make more clear the funding neededprograms (e.g., CAP) were added. for the experiment vs. what has actually been ob-

Numerous items have been revised to make clear tained.what data is required. This is particularly true for The instructions were reworked to more clearlyitems where recent experience has shown that STP state what is needed and also to allow for easierexperimenters have not fully understood what in- reading than in the previous, sometimes terse, in-formation is required, or where the previous forms structions. The layout of the forms were alsowere ambiguous. For example, the new forms will changed to make it easier to read and easier toallrjw the experiment power requirements and determine which sub-items belong under whichduty cycle to be stated more accurately. In addi- major headings.tion, the new form allows the experimenter tomore cleariy state what experiment power is re- The forms now include spaces for items concern-quired from STP hardware and what will be ing individuals that have been needed, but not sup-provided by the experiment itself. This has been a plied, in the past. Mailing addresses, as well as of-source of confusion on numerous occasions in the fice symbols, are now requested. Spaces forpast. AUTOVON, as well as commercial, phone num-bers are provided.The new form allows the experimenter to describe

what flight modes and orbit parameters would be Finally, certain essential information, such as PIacceptable. In addition, the telemetry and data data, has been added to Form 1721-1, since this ishandling sections were reworked. In the past, there the only form now required for many experimentswas confusion about experiment data rates, real-time data rate, the amount of data storage needed, Points of contact for coocion

these forms are MVAJ Dan Cramrer anaCAPT Don Johnson, USAF Space Syste.sDivision, SSD-CLPD, AV 833-671-5,Commercial 213-363-671-5.

Saoiotent'990 STP STATUS EPORP

Securty Classification (H'1en dwaa entered)

SPACE TEST PROG:RAMM CLASSIFIED BY:FLIGHT REQ1UESTEXECUTIVE SUMMARY DECLASSIFY ON:

-- II I LC

3. EXPERIMENT MIJ4iER: 1'."DATE OF SulISslIOl 5. DATE OF REVISIO•

"0. 66JC lAVt ,,,

T. RELEVANCE TO SPECIFIC DOD REJUIREMENTS

8.REQUIREMENTS s U Y0. kL~ IU R M• ." (M o l IT : I- vP k tt R R D , 9" A LC tW A bL t, " - - _" ' AC lV A l t) b. N A R D ; X ;K t tL 1 4 M K L A T VA i t .

C] FREE-FLYER 0 MITCN-NHIKR [ SPARTAN [] STS LOCKER/QRSP C.

Q] G.A.S. r7 C.A.P. rl SHUTTLE SORTIE LIGN DURATION R QUIRE0:

- OTHER (Specify)

d. PAYLI SPECIALIS e. WEIGHT (kg): f. MONINAL PWER (ml:YES NO NOT APPLICABLE

g. 7 MlSoNS (cm): h. VOLUME (cc): i. STAIILI.ATNw TYPE:

X Xj. ORBIT REQUIREMENT (km): * INCLINA? ON:

APOGEE * PERIGEE_ _ _

-. THE REGUIREMENTS:

9. PROGRAM SUMMARYa. PUNU1016 5IATI.J PRICK FI.5AL TLARS WkktlN FISCAL TE.AR IUUkISALT. UiAL

TOTAL NEEDED:

SECURED TO DATE:

b. DESIGN/FABRICATION STATUS CO €NTRACTOR:

10. EXPERIMENTER AGENCY DATAN. APrNIJVINU UFGi6AL (Lsfirst., : 0. A01IITT: J C. P95AI IW4:

d. MAILING ADDRESS: *. TELEPCONE(S5: f,7 T E:Cam:

AV:

j. MAILING ADORESS: I. T -LEPH-NE(): 1. SiGNATUirE:-

AoY:

00 FORN 1721-1 AUGUST 1990 PU OPREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OISOLETE

urity Classification (W~en dta entered)

Instructions For Completing DO Form 1721-1Space Test Program Flight Request - Executive Summary

A. -Genera pose/use of the expected results of the experi-ment. If there is more than one objective,

The Space Test Program Flight Request treat each one separately. If the objective is- Executive Summary requests information classified, an unclassified version must berequired by management for "quick look" included, if possible.understanding and evaluation of a proposedflight experiment. The Executive Summary will 7. Relevance to Specific DoD Requirements:describe the objective(s) of the experiment and Explain (in 50 words or less) why this experi-military value or relevance. It will also provide ment should be performed. Emphasize rele-a summary of flight requirements, funding and vance to DoD as much as possible. Indicatehardware status. potential improvement in military hardware or

military operations.B. Security_

8. Requirements Summary: Indicate by theThe form will be marked at the top and notation scheme shown if the experiment is to

bottom with a security classification commen- be considered for the various flight meanssurate with the highest classification of any shown or explain other modes under "other."single entry on the page. For a classified form, Hardware flight ready date (year-month-day)the security classification of each block must be is the date on which the experiment could beindicated such as (C) for CONFIDENTIAL). delivered for integration with spacecraft orThe downgrading block (Classified by: / support equipment. Provide an estimate of theDeclassify On:) must also be completed. experiment's physical parameters, and the

required orbital parameters. If technicalC. Instructions for Form Items requirements have not been fully determined,

provide best estimate. Indicate any rquire-1. Experiment Title. Select a title that de- ment for a payload specialist including the usescribes the broad objectives of the experiment of a payload specialist for free-flyer checkoutand uses one or more key words. Nicknames, before release.equipmcnt nomenclatures, acronyms, etc.,should not be used. The title should be 9. Program Summary: Indicate fundsunclassified if possible. previously obtained or expended to date, funds

planned for the current fiscal year, and funds2. Short Title. Nomenclature, acronyms, and needed for future fiscal years. Distinguishnicknames are permissible, but should be between funds which are needed and those thatunclassified if possible. have been secured. Total cost includes all-

costs supported by the experiment sponsor.3. Experiment Number. Use up to five lettersfollowed by a hyphen to identify the sponsor, 10. Experimenter Agency Data.: Signature it-then three numbers consisting of last digit of required from the office that is authorized tothe the fiscal year (e.g. "9" for FY 1989) and transmit spaceflight requests to the Director ofthe sponsor's log number in two digits. Space Systems and C", Headquarters

SAF/AQS. The name block should include4. Date of Submission. (Self-explanatory.) rank (if military) or title. Include full mailing

address and commercial and/or Autovon5. Date of Revision. (Self-explanatory.) phone numbers. Similar information should be

provided for the Principal Investigator, who6. Objective: Describe (in 50 words or less) will be the primary contact to STP for thewhat is to be accomplishecL State the pur- experiment.

Security Classification (When daia entered)

a. FLIGHTE e REQUES CLASSIFIED BY: A

11. STAFF APPROVAL ______IZ____________

¶2. PRJCSOFCPMNGMNS ORFZ 9. ___$PON___Solt

4.KR LsPrt .O . AU h T C. P95 TI ON

0. SIGNTUR WtUNER~s) f. DATE

AV:

a.0.R tat `% t .. AL.4VJrI C. FU5 I Ium

C3 a~tR . PIIOkE WLSER(S) f. DATE

Cam:

AV:

Q. 1~~tREt. K TTOE(Y f. DATE

Cam:

AV-.

4. 11AME (Last, Pitilt, R.I.) 0. AL;IiVITT C. M511hION

d. SZIGATURE 0. P"O0U WNBEA(S) f. DATE

Can:AV:

INEMELT IUII

d. SIGMATLEDIIM AR. PNWSOLETE)f. 1

S~ainzy Clam:fcto Wandweir

Instructions For Completing DD Form 1721Space Test Program Flight Request

A._eeraci requirements.

This DD Form 1721, Space Test 6. The form is in several parts. Parts I and IMIProgram Flight Request, solicits information should be completed for all experiments. Partneeded to evaluate and select experiments II is divided into separate sections for Shuttleproposed for spaceflight and enables STP to payloads (Part f-A) and for free-flyer payloadsaccomplish spaceflight planning analyses and (Part 11-B). Fill out the section appropriate topayload integration studies prior to the experiment. If it is desired that the experi-recommending assignments of experiments to ment be considered for either means of flight,spaceflights. Some general guidelines for both Part II-A and Part Il-B should be corn-completing this form are as follows: pleted.

1. Give actual information, if available; Securityotherwise, use an estimate and so indicate.Dates will be shown MYMMDD), which indicates The entire form will be marked with ayear-month-day. security classification commensurate with the

highest classification of any single entry. For a2. Submit a change when information previo- classified form, the security classification ofusly submitted changes or when actual informa- each block must be indicated, such as (C) fortion becomes available to replace. estimates. CONFIDENTIAL The downgrading blockFill in only those blocks necessary to identify will be included on the first page of each 1721the experiment and to note the change. In this submitted.case, be sure to check the "Rev." box in thedate block at the top of page I of the form. C. Instructions for Form Items

3. If the available space for any item is too PART I - REQUEST FOR SPACEFLIGHTsmall, use additional pages as needed.Although conciseness is desired, considerably 1. Experiment Th1e. Select a title thatmore room may be required for specific items describes the broad objectives of thein individual cases, experiment and uses one or more key words.

Nicknames, equipment nomenclatures,4. It is important that the information on the acronyms, etc., will not be used. The titleform details all acceptable flight modes which should be unclassified if possible.would be considered. Clearly stating whatflight modes would be acceptable increases the 2. Short T77le. Nomenclature, acronyms, andflight opportunities for a specific experiment, nicknames are permissible, but should be

unclassified if possible.5. For GAS (Get-Away Special), CAP(Complex Autonomous Payload) or QRSP 3. Eperiment Number. Use up to five letters(Quick Response Shuttle Payload) experi- followed by a hyphen to identify the sponsor,ments, it is not necessary to complete Form then three numbers consisting of last digit of1721 (Form 1721-1 is sufficient). However, it the the fiscal year (e.g. "9' for FY 1989) andmay be desirable to complete Form 1721 to the sponsor's log number in two digits. Formore clearly state the experiment example: the first experiment submitted by the

Sec'urity Classiricajo-a (W~ien dwar eniered)

xpient ~Exr*mCnt treparation _ _ _ _ _

17. RELEVANCE TO SPECIFIC DOD *EQUINENPETS

15. AACKO*RJIkO

00FORMTo AUGU.ST 1"0- 2OPREVIOUS EDITI~mS ARE OBSOLETE ________________________

Security CLassification (Whecn daaen'emd)

Geophysics Laboratory for FY 1989 would be particularly desirable. Consider the followingGL-901. Once assigned, this number does not questions as a guide in the development ofchange. your narrative, as applicable.

4. Project Number. The experiment project a. What is the relation to exploratorynumber, or the number of the overall project development or operational syste..sof which the experiment is a part. development programs?

5. Task Number. The task number that the b. For hardware developments andexperiment is supporting. demonstrations, forecast results accruing

through successful completion of this6. Program Element Number. The DoD effort, including potential operationalprogram element number of the program applications or improvements in presentsponsoring the experiment, operational systems performance. What

is the need for this hardware7. Project Office. The activity to which the development? What will it do better?experimenter responsible for the experiment is Why do it?assigned.

c. For exploratory development efforts,8. Management Office. The activity having forecast the improvement in technologymanagement responsibility for the experiment. that is anticipated. Discuss how the

proposed technology will be better than9. Sponsor. The agency responsible for the existing technology.program, project, or task being supported andcontrolling the resources to develop, fabricate d. What is our present knowledge orand qualify the experiment, capability in this area? What is the

current state-of-the-art?10-15. Approval as appropriate. As aminimum, approval must include principal e. What are the technological alter-investigator, sponsor, and office having natives? Why should this effort be madeauthority to forward request to SAF/AQS. at this time?

16. Objective. Describe what is to be 18. Background. Provide a brief historicalaccomplished. State the purpose/use of the summary of the effort. If appropriate, includeexpected results of the experiment. If there is preliminary investigations in laboratories,more than one objective, treat each one ground facilities, aircraft, balloons, spaceseparately in descending order of importance. probes, ballistic flights, and spaceflights. TheseIf the objective is classified, an unclassified may each be grouped with inclusive dates.version must be included. Do not include the References to documents or publications which.justification or description in this section. Note summarize the history or current status ofhere possible modifications in the objectives these efforts are desirable. List each historicaland scope resulting from alternative flight flight, the results (i.e., success, failure), and theoptions (sortie versus free-flyer and/or primary category of flight experiment (i.e., spaceorbit versus alternate orbit), probes, balloons, ballistic flights, and

spaceflights). How does previous work make17. Relevance to Specific DoD Requirements. the proposed experiment practical? AllExplain why this experiment should be experiments, not just those of yourperformed. Emphasize relevance to DoD as organization, should be reflected. Update thismuch as possible; Multiagency relevance is section as necessary with new developments.

Security Classaflcazion (When daa entered)

Exe•innZ Prenparmation

I*. ALJIkuAhvlla 79WC&P1m

Z0. FOLLOW-ON PLANIS I

I

00 FORK 1721 AuJwsT J990 PAG OF "

PR•VIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE

Security Classification (When- data entered)

c. Identify and discuss the equipment to19. Alternatives to Spaceflight. Explain why be used.this experiment should be performed in space.Consider the following questions: d. Discuss the risks involved.

a. Why are ground, balloon, airplane, or 22. Pictorial. Include a descriptive picture ofspace probe tests inadequate? the experiment.

b. Why are existing data inadequate? PART 11-A - TECHNICAL DETAIL.S, SPACESHUTTLE SORTIE

c. If similar or overlapping experimentsare being performed by other agencies, Complete this section only if the experimentexplain how this proposal differs from is to be considered for a Space Shuttle Sortiec(or is similar to) the other investigations, flight mode.and comment on the following: Otherwise, check the "not applicable" box

and skip to Part UI-B. In 'this case, the(1) Why should this DoD and "required" category is checked on Item 49 ofsimilar or overlapping experiments Part Il-B.should both be flown?

23. Orbiter Sortie Mode- Check the item that(2) How could either experiment describes if experiment is to be considered forbe modified to suit the needs of sortie onl';, or if the sortie mode is anthe other? acceptable alternative (i.e., free-flyer as a first

choice). Make sure that this block is(3) What efforts have been made consistent, with Item 49 (Page 8).to accomplish (2) preceding andwith what results? 24. Standard Support Hardware Desired / Flight

Options. If experiment has been designed for20. Follow-on Plans. What is the next step if a particular type of flight support equipment,this experiment is flown? Identify additional describe that equipment. Also, note anyspaceflights anticipated. Does the present mission peculiar flight options for thisexperiment require more than one flight? hardware. Describe briefly any nonstandardIndicate if the DD Form 1721 is to be used for support required.justification for such flights.

2Z5. Weight. Provide the current best estimate2 1. Description. Tell how the experiment of total experiment weight and expendableobjectives are to be attained. Use the weight. "Expendables' include items that wilfollowing as a guide, but include other be ejected from the Shuttle and/or consumedrelevant material. in the conduct of the experiment.

a. Identify and discuss the technical 26. Physical Dimensions. List the physicalapproach or technique to be used. dimensions of the hardware, making sure to

note the way these dimensions are measuredb. Why is the proposed approach or (for example: *W" for width, "W' for height, "L7technique better than others? Discuss in for length, "D" or "DIA." for diameter, etc.).quantitative terms. What are thealternatives? What are the comparative 27. Total Volume. Estimate the total volurneadvantages and disadvantages? of the experimental hardware.

SecuRity Classifflaton (Whem data enteredj

~x~ cut Lj~erimCnt ____________

ZZ. PICTORIAL

00 L FO00 1I2 AUOUSI 1990 OF~ IPREVIOUS EDITIONS All COSOETE

Securicy Classificabon (When data eniered)

28. Extension Beyond Bay Envelope. If any this time, write "open." The earliest dateportion of the experiment (excluding should be estimated based on the experimentejectables) extends outside the dynamic delivery date, allowing a reasonable length ofenvelope of the Shuttle bay when fully time for experime~at integration. Best availabledeployed, check "yes." information on subsequent flights required

must be indicated.29. Power. List the power requirement foreach experiment mode. "Stand-by" denotes 36. Orbital Parameters. Consider thepower needed when the experiment is not experiment requirements for orbit apogee,operating, but is drawing power ("keep warm" perigee, and inclination. Give most desirablepower). "Nominal" is the normal operating nominal values and maximum plus/minus limitspower. "Peak" denotes the highest power from these values. If no specific orbit isconsumption level to be used. All entries required, so state in "rationale." Include anyshould derote only the power that is to be other special requirements, such as circularity,provided to the experiment by the support sun synchronous orbits, etc. Acceptableequipment. alternative orbits should be noted in part "d."

These orbits are to be considered alternatives30. Energy. Provide the total energy to the primary orbit. If none are indicated, norequirement of the experiment under consideration will be given to sortie flights forworst-case conditions. Do not include special which the orbit parameters of parts a-c are notprocessing undertaken in support of the satisfied.experiment by the STP support hardware.

37. Orbiter Orientation. Use standard notation31. Experiment Power. If the experiment will as much as possible to indicate Orbiterprovide some or all of its ow'n power, note the orientation requirements, if any. For example,experiment-provided power here. If the Orbiter X, Y, and Z axes are standard airplaneexperiment will not contain its own power axes with origin at center of mass, X axissource, enter zero or "N/A". forward and Y axis out of right wing. LV

denotes nadir or local vertical. POP denotes32. Typical Duty Cycle. Enter the typical or perpendicular-to-ecliptic plane. For example,nominal percentage of one day's operation for + Z, LV denotes payload bay nadir oriented.each of the power levels in Item 29. Note any other attitude requirements needed

to perform the experiment.33. Maximum Duty Cycle. Consider also arealistic maximum (most stressing) duty cycle. 38. Stabilization Requirements. Provide

experiment pointing accuracy and pointing34. Mission Duration. Express the mission knowledge requirements for line-of-sight andduration requirements in days. Exclude from roll about line-of-sight. If special jitter or driftconsideration timc for ascent, descent, or requirements are given, control duration shoulddeployment of host payload. "Nominal" also be provided. If the experiment is to bedenotes a typical mission. "Minimum" ret': to mounted on an experiment-provided pointer,the shortest time that could yield a successful specifications on pointing, jitter or drift are notexperiment. "Maximum" might be dictated by to be provided.battery Life or other considerations; if there isno maximum, leave this item blank. 39. Major Movements. Discuss track or slew

requirements. Indicate nature of targets and35. Flight Date. Indicate the quarter and expected angular rates for pointing system, ifcalendar year of the preferred and latest date known. Include under "other motions"for flight. If no latest date can be provided at requirements for instrumented booms, masts,

Security Classirication (W~ien data menred)

PART 11.A - Tecbmical DeWaLs, Space Shuttle Sortie

NOT APPLICABLE (Skip to page 8)C]REWIRED

o PREERRED ACCEPTABLE 1N)i SJPA MDAtixg/LlT

zz. mljiam (49) 90. FHT.r5L;AL gi MIgH5 (CM) ii. 10WAL Vuwt.~a (cc)a. Totat payLoad b. expendables

x x

96.~ L IX AWi Q] YES a:. Fvitba b.) wA.P. tc." Stud-b z ~ z u zix(a. NaA.Power ca. Nomial, by .XUin.Powr b. Stand-by c t-y .Nmna .Nii~ . ai

KY. N STIAY ur~L. 1a

W1 FLIGHT D)ATE (ouartr Catendar Year)

a. PREFEIVEDI b. LAItbl Ra AIIUNALt

c. EARLIEST d. REFLIGHT

3.ORBITAL PR MTRa. AFOUet (kA) -I(pLuS) - (mir~.s) a. HAl JW4ALt

b. PERIGE (kim) +(PLU~S) - (mirxxj)

C. INCLIMAT1ON (degrees) +(plu~s) -Cirs

d. ALTERWA7E ORB17S (acceptavte if primry orbit is WawsaieS abi)

37. ORBITER ORIENTATION RE-QUIREJI ENT-S ceaiiiwnt oiere awL i cabt e)

b. Y-AXIS

C. Z*AXIS

d. OThER REQUIREMNETS

38.IAIO E URE E-S(pitn accurace (degrees) /pointir-i knowL.!ge (arc-sec.)

0. ROL.L AAOUT LINE-OF-SIGNT

c. JITTER OR DRIFT CTO71L

J. CXPERIIMET PROVIDED POINTER

00 FORM 1721 AAIGST i99O FACIE 5 0iPREVIOUS EDITIONS AXE OBSOL.ETE

Security Classification (When data vutend

RMS, or special field-of-view envelopes. items must agree with Item 25. Any ejecteditems such as sub-satellites or targets are to be

40. Astronaut Participation. Indicate by a noted. Any difference in the total weight ofcheck the functions an astronaut will be the "ejected" items here and the "expendables"expected to perform. Provide an estimate of in Item 25b are due to items consumed in inthe astronaut duty cycle: how much crew time the experiment operations (e.g. cryogen).is required for set-up, checkout, operation, and Indicate the status of final design drawings.stowage of the experiment. Summarize briefly Note the timetable of any critical specificationsthe major tasks for the astronaut noting that are not presently determined.essential and desired functions.

47. Space Shuttle Safety. Indicate any41. Ground Support Requirements During Flight. radioactive, or hazardous materials and otherDescribe any coordinated ground support safety considerations. Describe the status ofactivities that will occur during the flight, any safety coordination activities with NASA

that have been undertaken.42. Ephemeris Requirements. Provide accuracyrequirements in terms of a root sum square 48. Other Requirements. Indicate here itemserror or crosstrack, in-track, and radial errors; not considered earlier, such as specialalso indicate update requirements, if known. contamination control requirements on OrbiterIndicate if the requirement is for real-time operations, experiment-support equipment, orknowledge or post flight data. other experiments. Note desirable correlative

experiments (specific experiments or43. Telemetry And Data Handling. Make best experiment classes) and unique temperature orestimate of telemetry requirements. thermal load requirements.Acceptable delay times for ground receptionshould be indicated. Real-time downlink PART II.B - TECHNICAL DETAILS, FREE-should be minimized to the extent possible. FLYER MODEConsider astronaut monitoring and processing.

Complete this section only if the experiment44. On-Board Proce.ssing (Display & Control). is to be considered for flight on a free-flyingSpecial requirements, such as high speed satellite. If this experiment must be flown asprocessing or timeline-critical items, should be a Shuttle sortie, check the 'not applicable" boxnoted. and skip to Part M. The information in this

box must be consistent with Item 23 (Page 5).45. Commands. Estimate requirements for thedifferent types of commands. Refer to "Guide 49. Free-Flyer Mode. Check items thatto Standard Services." "Power on" and "power describe if experiment is to be considered for( for an item are considered separate free-flyer only, if a free-flyer is preferred, or ifcommands. If it is determined that command it is an acceptable alternative flight mode (i.e.,storage is required, write "yes" in Item 45e. Shuttle sortie as first choice).

46. Experiment Complement/Package Data. 50. Expeniment CLa= Check one of theThis section provides for a breakdown of the folWowing categories as follows:experiment into subassemblies based onpackaging or modules, and/or in terms of Experiment Only - the experimentseparate experiments constituting the total consists of one or more items requiringexperiment. Provide stowed and deployed (as support from a spacecraft not providedapplicable) dimensions in cm. The weight is to as a pan of the experiment.be provided in kg, and total weight for all

Security Classification (When data entered,

r -T~Le aIC ( TYWCO )

39. MAJOR mOvtMtN-lh

b. SLEW

c. OTHER MOTIOUS

d. REMARKS

1.o. ASTRONAUT PARTICIPATION

Ql MISSION SPECIALIST MONO~ITORNIG ANALYSIS

D] PAYLOAD SPECIALIST COMMAND CONTROL . OTNER_______________

C. ASTRONAUJT DUTY CYCLE

,3. DESCRIPTIOW OF ASTRONAl DUTIES

1.3.TELEMETRY & DATA HA.NDLING8. iAIA bit(AQ& XtQJ1RtMtNT (blt8 gf OIt*.

b. DATA OUTPUT RATE TO SPACECRAFT (t~a)(nmi

SREAL-TIME DATA REQUIREMENTS (n)

C] REAL-TIME DATA NOT REQUIREDo] R.AL-TIME DATA IS REQUIRED AT RATE

d. SPECIAL RQUIREMENTS

00 FO~m 1721 AUGUSjT 1990 PA .E

PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OSSOLETE

Security Classirication -(Wien datý ewumd)

Complete Spacecraft - the experiment isto be supplied to STP as a self-contained 58. Maximum Duty Cycle. Consider also aspacecraft. realistic maximum (most stressing) duty cycle.

Piggyback Payload - the experiment is 59. Mission Duration. Express the missionspecifically designed as a piggyback duration requirements in months. Excludepayload for a specific spacecraft host. from consideration time for ascent, or

deployment of host payload. "Nominal"51. Weight. Provide the current best estimate denotes a typical mission. "Minimum" refers toof total experiment weight and expendable the shortest time that could yield a successfulweight. "Expendables" include items that will experiment. "Maximum" might be dictated bybe ejected from the spacecraft and/or battery life or other considerations; if there isconsumed in the conduct of the experiment. no maximum leave this item blank.

52. Physical Dimensions. Lst the physical 60. Flight Date. Indicate the quarter anddimensions of the hardware, making sure to calendar year of the preferred and latest datenote the way these dimensions are measured for flight. If no latest date can be provided at(for example, "W" for width, "H" for height, "L" this time, write "open." The earliest datefor length, "D" or "DIA." for diameter, etc.). should be estimated based on the experiment

delivery date, allowing a reasonable length of53. Total Volume Estimate the total volume time for experiment integration.of the experimental hardware.

61. Orbital Parameters. Consider the54. Power. List the power requirement for experiment requirements for orbit apogee,each experiment mode. "Stand-by" denotes perigee, and inclination. Give most desirablepower needed when the experiment is not nominal values and maximum plus/minus limitsoperating, but is drawing power ("keep warm" from these values. If no specific orbit ispower). "Nominal" is the normal operating required, so state in "rationale." Include anypower. "Peak" denotes the highest power other special requirements, such as circularity,consumption level to be used. All entries sun synchronous orbits, etc. Acceptableshould denote only the power that is to be alternative orbits should be noted in part "e."provided to the experiment by the support These orbits are to be considered alternativesequipment. to the primary orbit. If none are indicated, no

consideration will be given to the experiment55. Energy. Provide the total energy for missions in which the orbit parameters ofrequirement of the experiment under parts a-c are not satisfied.worst-case conditions. Do not include specialprocessing undertaken in the support of the 62. Stabilization Requirnments Indicate type ofexperiment by the STP support hardware. vehicle stabilization required, if any. For the

spin stabilized case, additional information is56. Experiment Power. If the experiment will required on the spin rate and spin vector.provide some or all of its own power, note the Indicate the relationship of the spacecraftexperiment-provided power here. If the major axis with the orbit plane. Provideexperiment will not contain its own power experiment pointing arcuracy and pointingsource, enter zero or "N/A". knowledge requirements for line-of-sight and

roll about line-of-sight. If special jitter or drift57. Typical Duty Cycle. Enter the typical or requirements are given, control duration shouldnominal percentage of one day's operation for also be provided. If the experiment is to beeach of the power levels in Item 54. mounted on an experiment-provided pointer,

-sec•urity CassifIcstion (When daza entered)

N ~ Dar'e (vvmOO):

ON-BOARD PROCESSING (OISPLAY & CONTROL)'S.U)." UP €)•1rANUAKJ • . jwtP gp 1UHMIATi"-- ..

DISPLAY FORMATS C ALPHAMJIElIC STATU ILY CULT ARD

ANDI CONTROLLER OTHER (s,,, fy)__

.5. COM .....NDS.. .a. ,uHmlH ut Fwtx Lu'-.Ujlps 1D, *•56JIic u, ULLtI ,i' us

c. NO. OF SERIAL/DIGITAL COMANDOS Id. MAGNITUDE COW I iWOD SIZE (bits) 0e. C1514m4.A STO•AG.E

A6 EFAERJMF,-rCO9MPLMENT / PACK-AnE DATA

a. ITEM b. D114ESIONS c. DIMENSIOWS d. WEIGNT . EJECTED7 f. RECOVERY?STIOOD (cm) DEPLOYED (C)

S. OTNEA• PERTINENT DATA

h. DESIGNH ,RAWImG SPECIFICATION STATUS

t7. SPACE SHU-TLE SAFETYa. PUoSIBLE MAZAR95

- RADIOACTIVE DEVICES C nO Q] YES (if yet, mtertis(s) , strwvith_)

- HAZARDJUS MATERIALS C3 NO r- YES (1i yes. meteriai(s)_ .......... __"- OTHER Q] No YES (if V,.' swify

b. DESCRIBE SAFETY CORDIKATION ACTIVITIES WITH NASA TO DATE (11 ANY)

'44. UIMl~l II,;•JilqkI•,I.i

00 FORm I721 AuGIJsT I PAIL c IFPREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE

Security Classricatiou (47men dat entered)

specifications on pointing, jitter or drift are not determined.to be provided.

70. Other Requirements. Provide any other63. Major Movements. Discuss track or slew information necessary to allow STP to meet therequirements. Indicate nature of targets and experiment requirements. Indicate here itemsexpected angular rates for pointing system, if not considered earlier, such as specialknown. Include under "other motions" contamination control requirements on therequirements for instrumented booms, masts, spacecraft or other experiments. Noteor special field-of-view envelopes, desirable correlative experiments (specific

experiments or experiment classes) and unique64. Ground Support Requirements During Flight. temperature or thermal load requirements.Describe any coordinated ground support Indicate specific launch-window requirements,activities that will occur during the flight. if any.

65. Ephemeris Requirements. Provide accuracy PART III - PROGRAM INFORMATIONrequirements in terms of a root sum squareerror or crosstrack, in-track, and radial errors; 71. Funding Status. (Self-Explanatory)also indicate update requirements, if known.

72. Hardware Status. (Self-Explanatory)

66. Telemetry and Data Handling. Estimatethe maximum amount of data to be taken on a 73. Design-Freeze Date. When the design hastypical orbit. Estimate the rates at which the or will be "frozen." This normally occurs whenspa:ecraft will be required to record the data. detail drawings are released for hardwareMake best estimate of telemetry requirements. fabrication.Acceptable delay times for ground receptionshould be indicated. Real-time downlink 74. Delivery Date. When hardware could beshould be minimized to the extent possible. delivered for integration into spacecraft or

launch-vehicle system. Can be given in67. Commands. Estimate requirements for the "months after flight assignment.' Show as year,different types of commands. "Power on" and month, day when complete delivery date given."power off for an item are considered separatecommands. If it is determined that command 75. Funding Breakdown. Total cost includesstorage is required, so indicate. all funds expended by the sponsoring agency on

the experiment or spacecraft. For future costs,68. Possible Hazards. Indicate any radioactive, estimates will be included. For each field inor hazardous materials and other safety this item indicate the total funds needed forconsiderations. the item to the left of the slash, and the

amount actually secured to the right.69. Erperiment Complement Package DataThis section provides for a breakdown of the 76. Budget/Program Authorization Number.experiment into subassemblies, based on The budget and program authorizationpackaging or modules, and/or in terms of numbers approving the expenditure of fundsseparate experiments constituting the total for the experiment by the sponsoring agency orexperiment. Provide stowed and deployed (as higher authority.applicable) dimensions in cm. Provide weightin kg; the total weight for all items must agree 77. Contractor. Provide the name of the primewith Item 51. Indicate the status of final contractor.design drawings. Note timetable of any criticalspecifications that are not presently 78. Geographical Location of Contractor Work

Secuityi Classification (When da-Fd entered)

Xcfl( rement FYearatns O)____

PART 11-B -Technical Details, Free-Flyer ModeW.. PMU-tfLYLN MO~ ~U IAkLMM ýL.ASS

MOT APPLICABLE (Skip to p~e 11) QEXPERIMENT ONLYREQUI RED COMPLETE SPAGCECAFT

PRE FERREDPIGBCPALAPRFRE WTQ] ACCEPTABLE QPG~AXPYODPEERD(OT_____________

a1. WmPE144T b.LS Ma.orc Sad . "Ne.Powr MamPr "I. DIMENIOb .NSIa b.MiCM . eui

60. Aoa Cpugrcst b.era Exerdbs(irpoidd

54. PKiLNK (W) LA1L. tA. 't

a. WoiAt .Ixin NA SanEb

61. ORBITAL PUTrARAME Toprton FTTO.TERSo pra-oiTMO Rnrsa. Xa.Powe b (MaxPoerC ?-(pauicl -. *=.Power b.NxP0. Standb a Zis b inna .MLi

60, PERGE (k8) DATEuS -oatr (miru ear

RATIOCLNATLE(eres (~) - mr~s

f. MXIS/ORBIT PLANE RESTRICTIONS

82. STAB ILIZATIOIN R EQ UIREM EN`TS (mintin accuracy (g~rges)/poiriting know eoge(arc- sec.))0. STABILIZATION 411t

SPIN SPIN RATE_______ ______

S3ANYs OTHERt (specify)

b. ROLL g.REMRWS

c. PITCN

d. YAW

a. JITTER OR DRIFT

f. OTHER REQUIREMENTS

DO FOAm 1721 AuW~ST 19roi AE Gi1PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE _______________________

Security Classirication (Whten date etered)

Location of the hardware if already fabricated,

or the design/manufacturing effort.

79. Contract Number. (Self-Explanatory).

80. Planned Contract Obligation Date- Indicatewhen contracts were or will be let to design,build, or support the experiment or space(Taft.

81. Coordination. Summarizes the coordina-tion and concurrence obtained from other DoDagencies and/or NASA. Give names, officesand the phone numbers. As appropriate,indicate the result of this coordination. Givespecial consideration to the issue of similar andduplicative experiments in terms of objectivesand/or techniques. Significant changes result-ing from continuing coordination will be repor-ted as appropriate. Attach additional pages ifnecessary with the new preparation dates.

In pan "i", discuss similarities with otherexperiments, plans for consolidation, dataexchange, etc. It is recommended thatexperimenters coordinate with SSD/CLPD todiscuss experiment requirements, complexity,and compatibility with potential spacecraftopportunities.

82. Plan for Data Processing & Dissemination ofResults. Describe how the data will be process-ed and results disseminated to potential users.

83. Security Information. Designate items "a"through "e" with the highest security applicableto this experiment by U (for UNCLAS-SIFIED), C (for CONFIDENTIAL), S (forSECRET), or T (for TOP SECRET). Under"other classified items" identify other classifiedelements of the experiment and show theirclassification.

Security. Classification (Wien data entered)

63. ... MAJO0R MOVE.MENTIS tc!2laiw agA provide ra1Cs') ...

b. SLEW

C. OTHER NOTIONS

d. REMARKS

"b.. 'J•iUi UPPOT K•tUiT P .. KIN. . L....

t. LPlkN5 REQUIREMENT$

66. TELEMETRY & DATA HANDLINGa. gAIA SAI'KAuik Kk •RULK0T Mris per ,romt) t. XLNAKL.

b. DATA OUTPUT RATE TO SPACECRAFT (b)(PI~mi nm )( mix i ani)

c. REAL-TIME DATA REQUIREMENTS (bM)

rl REAL-TINE DATA NOT REQUIRED

REAL-TIME DATA IS REQUIRED AT RATE

0. SPECIAL REQUiREMENTS

"67. CO..MA.NDSa. XUM5tX Ut PO~tR 6QW94ANl 1 b. mkWI5 O 1 SNE ~ I E~I LCU&IM4

c. N60. OF SERIAL/DIGITAL COMANDS Id. MAGNITUDE COPAND wM S12E (bits) C0. 4KAwD STORAGE

f. REAL-TIME COMAND PROGRAMMING REQUIREMENTS (dlscribe)

68. POSSIBLE HAZARDS

"- RADIOACTIVE OEVICES [ NO [ YES (If yes, aterala(s) , strength_ _

NAZA*DW$S MATERIALS *a C] YES (if yes, mteriei(s)_)

"- OTER No C YES (if yes, specify

DO FO•M 1721 AUGuST 1990 PAGE v ý, i

PlEVIGUS EDITI1S ARE OSOLETESecuritny Clasication (Whgn data eruerd)

Security Classificatlon (4/hen data entered)

entfl B-merimcnL trepation _ _ _ _ _ _ _R ~ rTic are (c'ry IoD) :

69. EXPERIMEN' COMPLEMENT = PACKAGE DATA "__"_"___

a. ITEM b. DINENSIONS c. DIMENSIONS d. WEIGHT (kg)STOWED (cm) DEPLOYED (am)

e. OTH'ER PERTINENT DATA

f. £XPERIMENiT EQUIPMENT mOUNTING RESTRICTIONS

g. DESIGN DRAWING SPECIFICATION STATUS

DO FOR4 J717 , AUaJST 1•990 PAC;E . F " 1

PREVIJS EDITIONC$ All OSSOLETI

ScuZrity Chrssiflcation (Wen data men•d)

Security Classirication (When data entered)

r~xpeggnent pJmeriment ________________

_______________I____ ae We(YYWW):_____________

PART III Program / Security Information

TOTAL PARTIAL Q UNFUNDED ffLT.READY UUNDER CONS?. QBREADBOARD (]DESIGN ~CONCEPT

75. FUND)INU bREAKDOWN(S MEWERD /SSECUREDO

a. ITEM 0. PRILiI PT PUN;Jb F. ibUiCLMI FT F~UNDS c. PUIUICt PT PftI~b *. TA L"I

PROTOTYPE///

HARDWARE/ I

STAFF COSTS////

DATA REDUCTION////

TOTAL.

73. 5larw TI ( PRLMT -AUT A I 4M~A I I L5 xv.I MKA.U

8'. COORDINATION

a. ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~M NAME (LostOS PO~,RI) .UFFL L~

113. SECURITTYINTOR-MATION (State M;gIheat Levets)4. 9ALRIMNI~ bJtL~liVi5 11tNLixt L1 C. A VL

d. EXPERIMENT DATA INTERXLFATUE

f. OTHER CLASSIFIED ITEMS

DO FORM 1721 AUGUST 1990-

PREVIOUS EDITIONS ARE OBSOLETE

Security Clas-sification (*heA d=t entered)

Miscellaneous Documentation

1. Battlefield Development Plan.

The Battlefield Development Plan (BDP) is the Army Training and DoctrineCommand's (TRADOC) assessment of the Army's ability to execute the approvedumbrella concept. It provides a consolidated and prioritized listing of war fightingneeds and helps TRADOC implement its mission to be the Architect of the FutureArmy. As one of the key products of the Concept Based Requirements System (CBRS),the BDP provides a basis for the identification and prioritization of solutions in theareas of doctrine, training, leader development, organization, and material.

a. The Branch Planning Analysis (BPA) process provides the basis foridentification of war fighting needs in the BDP. The Combined Arms Command (CAC),with support from the Combined Arms Support Command (CASCOM), TRADOCschools and the Deputy Chief of Staff for Analysis (DCSA), conducted extensiveanalytical efforts from October 1988 through October 1990 which culminated in thecurrent BDP. They considered historical perspective, doctrine, and Army missions.They also considered current and projected threats, war fighting environments,concepts, and friendly capabilities. They have analyzed our programmed forces' abilityto defeat the projected threats in a variety of scenarios. CAC consolidated the resultantcapability issues, prioritized them based on importance, and provided the prioritizedlist to centers and schools for branch-related analysis.

b. Branches reviewed the prioritized results and identified, from a branchperspective, any appropriate additional issues. Integrating centers then combined thebranch capability issues. CAC staffed the draft BDP with Major Commands(MACOMs) and Commanders' in Chief (CINCs), incorporated appropriaterecommendations, and obtained CC, TRADOC approval. Following this series of staffreviews the results were submitted in draft BDP 94-08 to HQ TRADOC.

c. The BDP represents a multi-branch perspective of future Army war fightingneeds and provides a logical basis for development of strategy for the future .rioy. TheBDP will be used as the basis for developing the Army Modernization Memorandum, afollow-on document that will provide a recommended priority of solutions for inputinto the Army's Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Systems (PPBES).

d. Requirements applicable to both imagery and space technologies include thefollowing:

(1) Collecting threat information.(2) Locating targets beyond line-of-sight.(3) Imagery on deep targets.

H-1

(4) Target identification during periods of limited visibility.(5) Detecting minefields.(6) Identify nuclear weapons, storage and production areas.(7) Detecting nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC) hazards.(8) Information integration for battlefield decision-making.(9) Exploitation of space capability to acquire target data.(10) Timely target damage assessment (TDA) beyond line-of-sight.(11) Map production.(12) Cross-cueing from/to other sensors.

2. Target Folder Example.

Side I - 20" x 24" color photo taken from orbit during previousspace mission. This photo provides a view of how the approach tothe ground target site will appear from orbit.

H-2

1:1,000,000 Map of site with 10" x 12" High-Res image of site.enlarged orbit ground trackoverlayed.

Target Name and statement INFLIGHTREP: Mission/Targetof normalcy for the site. CAT Code table with space for

entries.

Essential elements of Information (EEI) were not established separately for eachtarget site. Guidance and required reporting items specified in the Imagery InterpretationRequirements For Reconnaissance Systems, RADC-TR. 90-370, was used for all target sites.

3. Mission Ground Track. Graphic of actual ground track is included at the end ofthis appendix.

H-3

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AFS Air Force StationAAMRL Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research LaboratoryASQ Anxiety Scale Questionnaire

BDP Battlefield Development Plan

CCD Charge Coupled Device

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects AgencyDCSINT Deputy Chief of Staff (for) IntelligenceDCSRDA Deputy Chief of Staff for Research and Development (ARMY)DE Data ElementDIA Defense Intelligence AgencyDR Data RequirementDSSM Department of Systems Surveillance Maintenance

EEI Essential Elements of InformationEPI Eysenck Personality InventoryFIGS Flexible Image Generation System

FOV Field of View

GTRI Georgia Technical Research Institute

HQDA Headquarters, Department of the Army

IA Imagery AnalystICD Interface Control DocumentINSCOM Intelligence and Security Command (Army)IMINT Imagery IntelligenceIPDS Imagery Processing and Dissemination System, the Army system

developed by the Joint Service Imagery Processing System (JSJ'pS)

JSC Johnson Space Center (Houston, TX)JSIPS Joint Service Imagery Processing System

KSC Kennedy Space Center (Cape Canaveral, FL)

L-1 (L-2,3,etc.) relates to launch time +/- number of hours, days, months, etc.

LED Light Emitting Diode

I-1

MAA Mission Area AnalysisMADP Mission Area Development PlanMBTI Myers-Briggs Type IndicatorMET Mission Elapsed TimeMI Military InteiligenceMMIS Military Man in SpaceMOS Military Occupational SpecialtyMPU Microprocessor UnitMS Mission SpecialistM51 Mission Specialist #1 on STS-44

NASA National Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNSTS National Space Transportation System (usually shortened to STS)NTM National Technical Means

OPSEC Operations Security

PIP Payload Integration PlanPS Payload SpecialistPSI Payload Specialist #1 on STS-44, The PS/IA conducting Terra Scout

RAF Royal Air Force

SME Subject Matter ExpertSpaDVOS Space-borne Direct-View Optical SystemSPSR Secondary Payload Support RoomSSP Space Shuttle ProgramSTS Space Transportation System

TASIF TENCAP Applications and Systems Integration FacilityTRADOC Training and Doctrine Command (United States Army)

USAEPG United States Army Electronic Proving GroundUSAETL United States Army Engineering Topographic Laboratory (now

USATEC, Topographic Engineering Center)USAIC&FH United States Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca (Successor to

USAICS in 1991)USAF United States Air Force

1

I-2

SfI